The Lumberjack



Students Serving The Cal Poly Humboldt Campus and Community Since 1929

Tag: Editorial

  • Editorial board condemns the decision to evict students living in vehicles

    From the editorial board of The Lumberjack:

    Cal Poly Humboldt’s administration has proven that the university is insensitive to its most vulnerable students and their precarious situations. The eviction of students living on campus parking lots in their vehicles is inhumane.

    The university has posed several solutions to these students, like temporary housing or staying in RV parks, but these options are unrealistic and unaffordable for most students living in their vehicles. These students have sacrificed many comforts in order to attend this university and have found a creative solution that allows them to earn their degree despite economic hardship. Many of these students will be forced to drop out if they are no longer allowed to live on campus.

    Housing in Humboldt has always been a problem. Digging through old Lumberjack archives from the ‘70s reveals articles about housing insecurity and crises 50 years ago. There’s a reason these students don’t live under a roof. Very few, if any, of them are choosing this option voluntarily. Living here is expensive and tuition is expensive. The allowance of overnight camping has allowed impoverished individuals to earn their degree with a lower cost of living.

    Pushing the students out would be at their detriment and only serve to clean up the image of Cal Poly Humboldt administration. Admin also neglects to realize the opportunity for mutually beneficial change in infrastructure as the campus grows. This is simply forcing students from campus out into the streets, where they will be shuffled around by law enforcement. It’s ignorant to assume that van lifers can just find an apartment after being evicted, especially with the limited options in Arcata. Campgrounds are also not always an affordable option for students. In addition, they are often far away and far from safe.

    This is dehumanizing and unjustifiable. This will directly affect the lives of these students for the worse. They have made great sacrifices in order to attend Cal Poly Humboldt and deserve the right to remain on campus without being harassed.

    If the university really is for a “high quality and affordable education” and a “just and sustainable world” like their Strategic Plan claims, then they have to consider how this will affect those students they’re evicting. How will they manage to study or turn in assignments if they don’t know where they’re sleeping that night? Or without WiFi? How will they stay healthy mentally without the security of a safe and reliable place to park their vehicle each night?

    It’s definitely not ideal that there are students living in parking lots. The administration cited “unsafe and unsanitary” living conditions as being a driving force for the sudden enforcement of parking regulations, but the evidence provided is far from conclusive. They also mentioned complaints, but as of now, they are staying silent about what those complaints are, or who exactly they came from. It is obvious that the issue is rooted in a lack of affordable housing and the competitiveness of applying for on campus housing, not in the students themselves. 

    It looks terrible, especially a month away from finals. The students living in their vehicles are not requesting any significant accommodations or services from the university—they are able to live sustainably and independently and want to be left alone.

    Houseless students have been living in their cars for decades. People view it as a viable option. In fact, several students who are getting evicted were previously told by members of the parking patrol that they would not be ticketed, towed or bothered if they slept in their vehicles. 

    This is a problem with no simple solutions, but even the absolute bare minimum is still better than the amount of assistance the university is offering. If outdoor cooking is an issue for university officials, then it should have been communicated clearly to those doing it. If the officials think the houseless students are unsanitary, give them 24/7 access to showers and bathrooms on campus. There’s a completely empty football locker room with showers that could be put to use. 

    These vulnerable students deserve help from the administration in their effort to earn their degrees. They should not be cast out, degraded, and othered.

    The actions of the administration will only leave the university buried in even more terrible press. This is an opportunity to do something wonderful for the students who have to live in vehicles, something this community can be proud of. We, the editorial board of the Lumberjack, urge the university to come up with a real solution to this problem rather than degrading and displacing its most vulnerable students and hoping people will forget about it. 

    If the administration truly is committed to the “just and sustainable world” they claim to be, then it’s time to prove it.

  • Sharing is caring… unless it’s propaganda: The Russia-Ukraine Crisis

    by Kris Nagel

    Everyone has an impact on someone’s perspective of the world. Almost anything we do or say affects someone in some way. The same holds true for the things we post on social media. We are all influenced by the people around us. When the subject of our virtual discourse is something as poignant as international conflict, our sympathies can be weaponized without us even knowing it.

    Roughly half of Americans regularly get their news from social media, according to a 2021 study from the Pew Research Center. The information we share online can challenge our belief system but oftentimes reinforces it. Al Tompkins, a journalist with the Poynter Institute, says that truth gets little consideration when the content we share aligns with our worldview.

    “We tend to support those things that agree with your position on anything,” Tompkins said. “Whether it’s the designated hitter in baseball or invading Ukraine, we tend to repeat and share things that we agree with.”

    The internet has changed the way information is spread through society. It’s easier than ever to produce fake information.

    “The other piece of it is this,” Tompkins said. “Disinformation is a very powerful weapon. The Russians know it but, let’s face it, the Americans know it too. The American government, particularly through the CIA, has done lots of disinformation over the years. You would expect that they do, it’s kind of part of what they do.”

    Understanding that misleading content is built into our news feed requires us to take a critical look at what we share before we share it. Tompkins’ approach asks four questions:

    What do I know?

    What do I need to know?

    How does that source know what that source claims to know?

    And is there any other way to look at this other than the way that source is telling me?

    Vicky Sama saw the real-time effects of media coverage and propaganda in the several wars she covered during her career at CNN. Sama is now the department chair for Cal Poly Humboldt’s journalism and mass communications program.

    “So there’s two parts of war, usually,” Sama said. “You have the war, the actual war with fighting and then you have the information war, the propaganda war, and that is an essential part of what happens in war as well.”

    When we see things happening live, there isn’t an editing process that we can rely on to verify what we see. Live television, live broadcasting, and live streaming allow for that to happen. Now that consumers are a part of the distribution process, Sama argues they also need to be part of the editing process.

    “If everybody’s going to start considering themselves a journalist just because they have a cell phone, then they need to start doing the work of a journalist and start verifying the information before they put it out there as well,” Sama said.

    However, verifying everything we see is seldom an intuitive process. Kirby Moss, a Cal Poly Humboldt professor in the journalism department, teaches a range of media analysis classes. Moss said that the fundamental way to verify information is to look for other sources reporting on the subject.

    “I tell students, if you find some information that you’re researching on, try to cross-check it with at least three sources if you can,” Moss said. “And then they find out sometimes like, ‘Well I went to one source but the other source says something else, the other says something else,’ and so then they begin to question that message.”

    It takes familiarity to be confident that the information you get is credible. That is not to say that there aren’t tools we can use to check the things we share. Vicky Sama is working on adding a media literacy course for freshmen to the department catalog. In the meantime, JMC 309: Analyzing Mass Media Messages will be open for registration near the end of the semester. Online courses on media literacy are also available to everyone through the Poynter Institute.

    [DISCLAIMER: The Lumberjack rarely uses journalism department faculty as sources for stories. However, an exception was made for this story due to the expertise our professors have on this particular subject. Vicky Sama and Kirby Moss do not exercise editorial oversight on the content The Lumberjack publishes.]

  • Impending mergers threaten Humboldt’s identity

    Impending mergers threaten Humboldt’s identity

    The merging of departments within the College of Arts Humanities & Social Sciences will lead to the detriment of distinct programs and the appeal of Humboldt State as a unique university. 

    As smaller departments are pressured to combine in order to meet the demands of budget cuts that add up relentlessly in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, we run the risk of losing the focused, intimate education that drew students to campus in the first place. 

    Due to low enrollment the journalism and communication departments have submitted a proposal to Dean Roseamel S. Benavides-Garb, suggesting they be combined, for fear of losing the departments altogether – a fear that is shared among many of the smaller departments on campus.

    One practical benefit of combining the journalism department with the communication department is the opportunity it would allow for courses to be offered more often with more students in the department. On the flip side, combining departments presents the potential to strip each major of its individual identity. While the increased size of the combined department could potentially attract more attention to each discipline, the lack of distinction between the two could also prove confusing and drive prospective students away. 

    Higher education is a step away from the general, scattershot education of grade school. We learn what we’ll focus on, and begin developing specific skills. We also begin to add to the greater pool of knowledge for our chosen field of study. The less our education hones in on a specific field, the more it feels like a shallow high school class – lacking the depth that student’s pay for when they attend a university. 

    While the emphasis of the study of communication is on the underlying meaning of how we communicate, the primary concern for most journalism students is the application of skills to make media of our own. Journalists are already required to take communication classes which prepare them for their chosen focus. Communication classes are valuable to journalists. Every member of our editorial board has taken a communication class which has shaped our perspective, just as our other general education classes impart valuable lessons. 

    Combining departments also comes with grave concerns that the departments will lose lecturers and potentially some of the classes they teach as former chairs are forced to move into teaching positions. This would cost journalism students opportunities to interact with more media professionals and those lecturers would be placed in danger of losing pay and the health insurance they have come to rely upon for themselves and their families. 

    The proposed plan not only throws the student experience in the department into question but ultimately, the merger’s promise to cut $180,000 in expenses annually feels almost like chump change in comparison to the monster deficit the university currently faces. At the end of the day, administrators, students and faculty have to ask themselves whether or not all this restructuring will benefit the university in the long term. Cuts save some money in the short run, but they represent a greater loss to the university and the Humboldt community.

    Some good will come of department mergers. We all have a lot to learn from each other. As journalism students, we will welcome our peers from the communication department and the value their program will add to ours in regards to the developing fields of ethics and theory of communication. Understanding how we interact with the world through language and the culture of communication is critical to operating as an effective journalist. 

    We hope that we can offer greater knowledge of media literacy. Today especially, media literacy is an essential skill any student with a university education should have, and it is crucial that students across all disciplines are armed with the tools to critically assess, analyze and critique media so that they can be more mindful of the media they consume.

    We also hope to impart our own personal experience writing about our university. All of us hear stories of poorly run programs, incompetence at the top of the HSU ladder, haphazard cuts, and a lack of forward thinking. We speak to staff who are afraid of the repercussions for simply telling us their stories. If we want to make HSU a better place, where else might $180,000 per year be saved?

  • It’s not just the Capitol Police

    It’s not just the Capitol Police

    As the world watched from their televisions on January 6, we witnessed scenes unfold before our eyes that were, to many, unimaginable: supporters of President Trump swarmed the steps of the U.S. Capitol Building, then proceeded to break in and advance as far as the Senate Chamber. 

    In the build up to the attack, Trump and his allies delivered speeches near the White House reaffirming his baseless claim that the election was fraudulent and that they must fight to overturn the election results.

    As rioters made their way past the barricades and through the doors, one thing was clear: at the time of the attack, there were few attempts made by police to stop the rioters. This comes as a sharp contrast to the Black Lives Matter protests that took place just this past summer, in which peaceful protestors were frequently met with violent police intervention.

    According to The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project that took place May 1 to November 28, 2020, Black Lives Matter protesters were significantly more peaceful than right wing groups, but law enforcement resorted to using force in 51% of Black Lives Matters demonstrations they engaged with, while only restoring to using force in 34% of right wing demonstrations they interacted with during the same period. 

    These statistics confirm what many activists already knew. The Lumberjack has documented the Eureka Police Department using more force against protesters in Eureka this past summer than the capitol police used when an attack was made against the capitol. The police use more force against journalists documenting protests than when right wing groups raided the capitol building. 

    On January 6, it took the National Guard four hours to deploy from the D.C. Armory from the time that the mob began making their way from where Trump was speaking. In contrast, in June at the height of the Black Lives Matters protests, there were about 1,700 National Guard members from Washington D.C. alone who were mobilized to respond to the demonstrators. 

    The feeble response from authorities in Washington D.C. to the attack on the Nation’s Capital is another undeniable example of racial biases that remain alive and thriving in this country. Our police protect white domestic terrorists and continue to endanger the lives of Black protesters advocating to have their voices heard and their equality recognized. 

    It is a message to all of the activists who choose to speak out against police brutality and all the journalists who cover the efforts of activists. Even here in Humboldt County activists face police brutality for daring to ask for an end to police brutality. Meanwhile, police open the gates across the country for violent extremists. The department might be different, but the institution is the same.

    It will take a dramatic institutional change in how the country approaches law and law enforcement to begin to dismantle the structure of white supremacy. The attack on the capitol showed the world that the institutions of law in D.C. need to change, but we have the same institutions here at home. Humboldt needs to change, too.

  • Prop 22 represents political favoritism of money over workers’ rights

    Prop 22 represents political favoritism of money over workers’ rights

    California’s passing of proposition 22 on Nov. 5 represents a frustrating history of workers’ rights being trampled by the overwhelming influence of greed in politics. 

    This proposition forces app-based workers to be classified as independent contractors, rather than employees. This classification allows companies like Uber, Lyft and Doordash to pay their workers significantly less than California’s guaranteed minimum as well as provide them with worse benefits than would be guaranteed as a full-time employee.

    This proposition was vehemently opposed by labor unions that represented drivers. Unfortunately they were hugely outspent in advertising by the corporations that funded the ballot initiative for prop 22. Advertisements for a yes on prop 22 were incredibly misleading and placed on Amazon, YouTube and even inside of Uber’s app. They misleadingly claimed being an independent contractor provided workers with the freedom to receive benefits while driving on their own schedule. 

    In fact, under prop 22 drivers are only guaranteed benefits after 25 hours of engaged driving time. Engaged driving time is defined by prop 22 as time actively spent with a rider in the car, or a delivery in progress. With drivers reporting that they spend over half of their time waiting for a pickup, this could require workers to put in more than 40 hours a week for less benefits than a full-time California employee.

    The reason that companies like Uber and Lyft are able to continuously influence political campaigns is due to the fact that within the US, companies enjoy and exercise the same level of freedom of speech granted by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that residents due.  

    In a 1886 Supreme Court case, Chief Justice Morrison Waite said that “the Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.”

    Two years later, the Supreme Court made the ruling official stating, corporations had equal protection under the law as they were merely expressing and acting on behalf of the people that created and ran them.

    These rulings are what set the stage for one of the most important court cases in the history of politics within the US, Citizens United v. FEC. 

    In the rulings of the case, Justice Anthony Andrews, joined by other Justices of the court, wrote that corporations were protected under the First Amendment to freely express their opinions on matters both domestic and political. 

    Furthermore, Justice Andrews wrote in the majority opinion that the US government was not responsible for creating an equal playing field regarding the use of money, changing the rules of campaign financing, leading to the rise of super Political Action Committees. These PACs could acquire an unlimited amount of funds from corporations, individuals and other PACs to use for supporting political candidates and proposals.

    The consideration for corporations did not always extend to laborers. The US has a history of ruling against labor unions, going as far back as 1806, where the first case regarding a labor strike occurred with Commonwealth v. Pullis. The Philadelphia Mayor’s court ruled that leaders of a union strike were guilty of conspiring to raise their wages after labor strikes failed to do so. This established a precedent that labor unions were illegal, something that stood until 1842.

    The consensus in academic literature is that unions shrink income inequality. Union members make, somewhere between 10 and 30 percent, and enjoy more benefits. Unions also drive worker solidarity and income equality across race and gender lines. The recent rise in income inequality in the US is partially attributable to shrinking union membership. The idea of collective bargaining only works if trade unions have the power of large numbers of workers standing in solidarity. 

    The ferocity companies and governments demonstrate when quelling labor organizations should be all the evidence needed that labor organizations are effective. The total number of workers murdered in response to labor organization in the United States is unknown, but the number of workers killed by law enforcement, company militias, and other anti-labor forces during labor disputes numbers in the thousands. If labor organizations did not work, no one would drop bombs on striking workers and, knowing the risk, no one would strike if it did not benefit them.

    The US Government has often been hostile to labor organizations. During the early years of the industrial revolution, the legality of collective bargaining was uncertain, but often led to convictions and fines. Even when collective bargaining was legalized, the National Guard and local law enforcement were responsible for violence against labor organizers. 

    Resistance to collective bargaining should be expected from people who became as powerful as they did by appealing to moneyed interests. No one in a position of wealth and power can be relied upon to betray their source of power. Greed is bipartisan, and workers should not rely on institutions to grant them rights if those same institutions have proved hostile in the past. 

    Though the labor victories of the past still benefit workers immensely, companies are doing everything they can to undermine those victories. Prop 22 is one in a long line of examples. It undermines workers rights and chips away at our hard won standard of living. It should be a warning sign that no labor struggle is ever over. It will be an ongoing fight against corporate greed, but joining a union and standing in solidarity with workers across divisions of nationality, race, gender and economic background will benefit yourself and your community.

  • Dismal democracy

    Dismal democracy

    The Lumberjack editorial staff comments on America’s flawed electoral system

    As the world watches the United States 2020 election results, waiting for our pseudodemocratic process to churn out a new president, historically unprecedented voting methods misrepresents the reported Election Day results.

    A common misconception surrounding the democratic voting process is that a casted ballot directly counts toward and impacts the presidential election. However, the reality is that every individual’s vote doesn’t hold the same amount of power or equitable value.

    The power and value behind your vote is entirely dependent on where you live. Because the electoral college ultimately chooses the president, not the people, the real value of your vote is determined by the ratio of individual votes to electoral votes in each state. 

    For example, California has a population of about 39.5 million. We have 55 electoral votes, one for each of our congressional representatives. That works out to about 718,000 people per electoral vote. Wyoming has a population of about 579,000. They have three electoral votes. Only one from their representative in the house, but two from their representatives in the senate like every other state. That works out to about 193,000 people per electoral vote. If you’re from California, a Wyoming presidential vote is worth 3.7 times the amount of yours. The story is the same for many of the less populated states.

    The voting process falsely validates casted ballots and ultimately undermines votes through the electoral college’s overriding casted vote. Ultimately, you’re not directly voting for a presidential candidate, you’re informing the decision of the electors who do. 

    Within battleground states, Democrats are sending in more mail-in ballots than their Republican counterparts. The New York Times estimates that 64 million mail in ballots were cast in this election, nearly three times the amount cast in the 2016 election. While COVID-19 played a significant factor in the disparity, pushes came from Democratic candidates across the nation to gain momentum moving into Election Day.

    Due to mail-in ballots accounting anywhere from 20-50 percent of the votes in different states, we may not know actual election results until days after election night. States, such as North Carolina, are planning to accept ballots postmarked on election night until Nov. 12. Some states have relatively small margins of difference, which could result in swing states prolonging the definitive results of the election.

    Additionally, the United States leaves self-declared territories, for example Guam and the Dominican Republic, neglected in the political process and without influence in the choice of US president. The same could be said for the millions of American citizens who have been deprived of their right to vote because of the criminal justice system. This imbalance significantly alters the demographic of voting participants, therefore not valuing or accounting for every community’s perspective. 

    This disparity leads to presidents with less votes defeating their opponents, or candidates never getting a clear majority. 

    While the Lumberjack staff believes the US’s democratic process is deceitful in terms of transparency, we do not agree or echo any of Trump’s sentiments that discredit voting. Instead, we believe his spewing of misinformation contributes to the detriment of the country’s Democratic Republic status. 

    The US glamorizes its democratic facade as legitimate, straight forward and for the people, however, systemic strategies have displaced and deprived American citizens of their Constitutional right to vote. Between systemic imbalance of the electoral college, active voter suppression and unequal voter representation, our democracy is rooted in unequal representation. 

  • Humboldt State Admin attempts to discredit the Lumberjack

    Humboldt State Admin attempts to discredit the Lumberjack

    ***A Lumberjack editorial represents both the majority opinion of the student newspaper’s editorial board, nine editors, as well as the overwhelming majority of Humboldt State University’s student body. Collectively, an editorial echos, embodies and advocates for community beliefs.***

    Insensitive communications between Humboldt State University administration and student newspaper, the Lumberjack, includes inaccurate accusations and degradation comments directed at the LJ’s reputation. 

    In a letter to the Lumberjack’s editor, Vice President Frank Whitlatch claims the student-paper intentionally printed false information. The letter targets four specific points within the article, “HSU Athletics Department left in dark about SJSU,” by Sports Editor Thomas Lal, published in print on Wed., Oct. 7 and online the following day.

    According to Whitlatch, the four issues within Lal’s article include accuracy, context, claims of purposeful ignorance towards follow-up quotations and headline language. 

    Whitlatch’s claim that Jane Teixeira’s, HSU’s athletic director, was misquoted in regards to the Athletics department’s knowledge of San Jose State University’s arrival is completely inaccurate. The second paragraph of Lal’s article clearly states HSU Athletics was notified late Tues., Sept. 29. 

    “With the notice coming late on Sept. 29, the first chance that the department had to discuss matters was the following day with the Spartans roughly 24 hours away,” Lal wrote in his article.

    The information reported in Lal’s article directly matches the information stated in Whitlatch’s letter to the editor. There is no inaccuracy. Lal, in fact, did not ignore the information as the letter suggests. Whitlatch attempts to use this baseless claim to delegitimize the entire article.

    While the letter states HSU Athletics was not in the dark about the team arriving, our editorial staff does not believe a few hours of advanced notice would significantly impact the department’s ability to prepare for the team’s arrival. 

    Whitlatch attached transcripts from Lal’s meeting with Teixeira in his letter claiming the Lumberjack ignored context surrounding Teixeira’s quote. Cris Jones Koczera, emergency management coordinator, however, further supported the information reported in Lal’s article.

    “It was at the end of the day, on Tuesday [when they found out],” Koczera said in the interview with Lal. “So, by the time we really had an opportunity to get together, start talking about what that meant it was Wednesday first thing, right out the gate.”

    In a Zoom meeting with the Lumberjack editorial staff on Thurs., Oct. 15, Grant Scott-Goforth, HSU’s communications specialist, echoed Koczera’s statements that SJSU’s arrival at HSU was in fact a last-minute affair.

    “The Athletics Directors and our emergency operations team and myself I think found out several hours before the rest of the campus did,” Scott-Goforth said. “So, that was a scramble. I mean, that was a huge scramble.”

    In addition to Scott-Goforth’s confirmation, he claimed the diction used in the Lumberjack’s editorial, “Humboldt State administration cash in at student expense,” was strong, misleading and accusatory language that promoted a Humboldt brand of xenophobic behavior towards students from big cities by stating SJSU was stealing HSU student resources. 

    “I just felt that was a little bit misleading because again you know this is a decision that’s made by the President’s versus the student athletes who are coming here so they could practice but it wasn’t exactly their choice,” Scott-Goforth said. “I grew up in Humboldt County and I feel there’s this weird kind of specific Humboldt County brand of xenophobia that I see over and over again, and often is about HSU students coming from the big cities and it’s a scary thing.”

    Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services was not advised prior to SJSU’s arrival, the Lumberjack was purely reacting to student and community concern regarding health endangerment in the midst of a pandemic, not due SJSU coming from a more populous county.

    The Lumberjack is an independent news organization. We have enjoyed a healthy, working relationship with the HSU Athletics Department and would never purposefully ignore facts provided in an interview. Implying that we would attempt to mislead our readers is entirely incorrect and harmful to the reputation of this publication and its reporters. 

    Through a very complex set of circumstances, the Lumberjack has aimed to provide the most accurate information available to students and the community while working with Athletics to obtain that information.

    As a part of the California State University system, Humboldt State is subject to the same rules and limitations as other public universities. This includes court cases that set a precedent for the protection of student produced media under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

    By publishing your letter to the editor, we have maintained our position as a public forum by allowing a fair and open space for all to voice their opinion.

    While the Lumberjack may receive funding from the university, like many student-run programs on this campus, Bazaar v. Fortune, 489 F.2d 225 (5th Cir. 1973) ruled this does not grant the administration the right nor the permission to control the contents of the campus paper. 

    In addition, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District 393 U.S. 503 (1969) ruled that actions of censorship cannot be taken against a paper for content unless the school can prove the content would “materially and substantially interfere” with operations.

    Like any other publication, the Lumberjack is protected as a member of the free press. Our duty is to serve the interests of our students and surrounding community by informing them with timely and accurately reported information. While the HSU administration may take issue with our editorial, we stand by our position and how it accurately represents the voices of HSU’s student body.

    We will not be retracting our story and will continue to support the efforts our reporters make to ensure the voices of the student press on this campus are not silenced, censored or intimidated.

  • Humboldt State administration cash in at student expense

    Humboldt State administration cash in at student expense

    San Jose State’s football team steals on-campus resources from student body

    ***Editor’s note: SJSU football program was tested in congruence with Mountain West conference guidelines***

    Humboldt State University’s administration continues to ignore the health and well-being of paying students and surrounding community members by selfishly prioritizing university funding and money opportunities.

    On Oct. 2, San Jose State University’s football team arrived at HSU to utilize the field and training facilities. The team of 141 players, coaches and staff members are expected to social bubble, strictly quarantine with one another, on campus in Redwood Hall. Redwood Hall stands in the middle of campus, between the Student Health Center and the Depot, making it an unavoidable place for students on campus to pass by.

    In addition, HSU students were notified via school wide email of the university deal less than 24 hours prior to SJSU’s arrival.

    First and foremost, this deal did not involve the approval from either county’s public health officers. Since March, HSU has maintained a relatively low COVID-19 case count with only 11 confirmed cases. SJSU falls within Santa Clara County, and as of Oct. 6, has 50 confirmed cases.

    The team is expected to self-patrol and monitor their own health. They will be tested once a week throughout their stay at HSU, which directly violated SJSU’s athletic conference guidelines provided by Mountain West.

    The Mountain West Conference demands athletes be tested three times a week. If a test comes back positive, further testing is done to confirm the positivity. SJSU brought their own testing equipment, however, the heightened risk of contracting the virus extends beyond the student body and permeates into the town of Arcata.

    There has been no confirmation of how long SJSU’s stay will be. Hearsay declares a week, but pictures of arriving Spartan football players holding flatscreen TV’s and luggages of equipment says otherwise.

    Student facilities will cater to SJSU during their stay, closing off access to the Redwood Bowl from HSU athletes and students while also extending the Student Recreation Center hours beyond usual scheduling. A ‘no access’ sign currently hangs outside the gate entrance of the Redwood Bowl, HSU claims the sign is to contain SJSU’s football team and limit cross infection.

    HSU students have been repeatedly denied access to on-campus resources, classes, labs, studios and housing since the beginning of the pandemic. However, SJSU was able to rent out the Redwood bowl, SRC and on-campus housing facilities and resources immediately. HSU is renting out campus resources we either don’t have or refuse to offer to students.

    Administration stated that SJSU will be paying for all facilities, housing and resources being used during their stay. However, current resources occupied by SJSU at this time are paid for by student fees. Students believe the funds should be redistributed back to their accounts for a fair way to compensate for the loss of access.

    It’s clear that this decision to move SJSU to HSU was made last minute and without the permission or acknowledgement of HSU students. HSU administration has proven time and time again that the students’ safety isn’t a top priority. The motivation to cut out students from participating in their own university outweighs the value of students altogether.

    HSU continues to treat our campus like it’s closed or empty, forgetting an entire student body population of 6400 people.

  • Shelter-in-Place is Not a Productivity Race

    Shelter-in-Place is Not a Productivity Race

    Quarantine shelter-in-place offers escape for some and anxiety for others—both are damaging

    Inhale, pause, exhale. We are living through an unprecedented, intimidating and stressful time, but now is not the time to beat yourself up.

    While the world seems at a standstill, many people have taken this time away from their normal daily duties to start new hobbies, lose weight or even learn new languages. These tasks and goals are not a reflection of yourself, nor should they be used to show off your journey through social distancing.

    A 2013 study by a psychologist at the University of Michigan examined the effects of social media on people’s mental wellbeing. The study found that social media, Facebook in particular, does not facilitate beneficial social interactions.

    The same, and worse, can be said in regard to many other social media platforms. For example, Instagram can be a mindless escape for some but a shame-inducing harbor for others.

    There’s a constant creation of new challenges and trends coming up everyday, whether it’s the pushup challenge, #untiltomorrow or even celebrities singing tone deaf tunes. Or perhaps it’s a stream of self improvement posts and revitalized New Years goals.

    Whatever is clouding your social media feed, it doesn’t have to be a standard for you to live up to. This isn’t a productivity competition.

    Some of us might have more time on our hands, but that doesn’t make things easier—and some people still working or now taking care of children might not have more time. We are also still dealing with pre-existing mindsets on top of the stress of a viral global outbreak.

    Don’t waste this time comparing yourself to someone who’s lost 10 pounds walking in circles in their driveway or to someone who’s learned how to speak Italian while in quarantine.

    We need to have compassion for ourselves always, but especially now. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 webpage provides a section for stress and coping information. This page offers insight to stress causes and outcomes all while underscoring the importance of knowing everyone deals with stress differently.

    Thus, we escape to viral social media trends for entertainment and relief.

    In a recent Vox article, writer Rebecca Jennings supports the flood of Instagram challenges. She argues people should continue this outpour of personal content because it offers connections that will stay in this ephemeral time.

    However, instead of cluttering a platform with more dog picture reposts or pictures of people wearing pillows as clothing that only distract from the now, we should contribute to the conversation by being honest and doing something that honors yourself and others. Let your friends on social media know how you really feel—open up, cry, laugh and inspire. If you’re up for it, of course.

    Don’t waste this time comparing yourself to someone who’s lost 10 pounds walking in circles in their driveway or to someone who’s learned how to speak Italian while in quarantine. Of course, if walking in circles in your driveway while rambling in broken Italian is your thing, go for it.

    Being honest with others allows for accountability. If you continue to keep up a guise of happiness when you’re truly suffering inside, you won’t receive the help you deserve.

    Speaking up about how you feel is a challenge more people should face. You don’t need to make immediate changes to improve, but you owe it to yourself to take the time you need.

  • No Facts Justify the Pink Tax

    No Facts Justify the Pink Tax

    Businesses capitalize on gender-based price discrimination

    Gender-based price gouging often goes unnoticed, even though it affects the most basic items like clothing, menstrual products and toiletries.

    The pink tax, also known as the tampon tax, refers to women’s products that frequently cost more than equivalent male products. These taxed items aren’t necessarily centered around female hygienic products, but they often target that audience.

    March is dedicated to Women’s History Month, where past actions, sacrifices and challenges advocating for equal rights are respected and celebrated. The pink tax furthers gender discrimination and promotes the patriarchal setup of our society.

    Women pay more for products solely based on the product being used on a female body. This contributes to the suppression of female rights by unrealistically charging women more for the same products.

    The tax allows companies to take advantage of women’s products and manipulate the pricing to further profit. The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs conducted a study of the price differences between products which had male and female versions. The study found, on average, women’s products cost 7% more than men’s products.

    There are only five states which don’t tack on an additional tax for any women’s products—Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon.

    Research shows the female version of products like razors, clothes, shaving cream, facial cleanser and even children’s toys cost more on average than their nearly identical male counterpart products.

    Take a trip to the Target website and you can see the pink tax in action. A quick browse of Target brand razors will show the different pricing for men and women. A four-pack of women’s razors costs $2.99, while an eight-pack of men’s razors costs $4.89. That’s about 75 cents per women’s razor and about 60 cents per men’s razor.

    Pink taxes still exist in 35 states in the United States. There are only five states which don’t tack on an additional tax for any women’s products—Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon.

    Both New York and California look to join the five states of pink tax exemption by eliminating gender-based pricing discrimination. Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York is leading a campaign against the pink tax with a budget plan to remove all gender-based pricing. California State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson motioned for the same action and argued for the removal of the tax through a demonstration provided in a press conference. Jackson placed two basically identical soccer balls on a table, one with a pink stripe priced at $8.99 and the other with a blue stripe priced at $6.99. Jackson showed gender-based pricing to be simply ludicrous.

    As of June 2019, 13 states made female hygiene products tax exempt, including Utah, Ohio, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

    The essence of the pink tax is to further discriminate by gender and sexuality to create immense profit off of the subtle product differences. This makes money for corporate manufacturers and hinders the progression of gender equality.

    To participate in the pink tax revolution and help the gender equality cause, we advocate boycotting products that target women or supporting companies who fight against gender-based pricing. We encourage people to purchase from companies that don’t produce gender-specific products. Collectively, this allows us to retaliate against the existence of the pink tax in the first place.

  • We’re All Lonely But It’s Not Our Fault

    We’re All Lonely But It’s Not Our Fault

    Shifting the blame of loneliness from individuals to institutions

    There’s an epidemic of loneliness in modern America. It’s a trauma encompassing political, economic and social realms. We’re all alone, but it’s not any one person’s fault.

    Imagine the stereotypical millennial: they moved home after college, unable to find a job or afford a home of their own. It may sound pathetic. But maybe they’ve found the home they need.

    The alternative for the millennial generation is living alone in an overpriced closet. It leaves them fragile and alone. A 2018 national survey by the healthcare provider Cigna found 46% of Americans felt alone some or all of the time. Adults aged 18-22 responded as the loneliest age group. A 2010 AARP survey had similar findings.

    Lonely people are vulnerable. Alone, a small problem becomes a crisis. That crisis festers and becomes a trauma that stays with a person for life. Without a support network, a minor issue can snowball into an avalanche. Studies have linked loneliness to depression, distress, suffering, poor sleep, high blood pressure and death.

    Loneliness almost feels normal in a society that sees the world in terms of the individual. Privacy can feel like success. Appearing independent is an achievement. And we see weakness in a cry for help.

    We weren’t always this way. Prior to modern industry, humans often lived in close-knit communities, whether related by blood or not. Fast-forward to the 1950s, and the nuclear family emerges. There’s the working husband, the stay-at-home wife and the two or three kids. It might have been romantic then, but a 2020 article from The Atlantic by David Brooks shows this small, private family wreaked havoc on our social lives.

    Jump forward 60 more years and you get the loneliness epidemic. One could criticize nuclear families for pages—read Brooks’ piece for a full account. But as they relate to loneliness, they popularized small families and mistrust of anyone outside of those families.

    Small families can produce lonely individuals. Imagine a single child. Imagine their parents pass away. That child then has to live on their own, without the support of a family around them. Financial, personal or professional stresses can lead to a free-fall when you have no safety net.

    Small, nuclear families disintegrate, and children are left on their own.

    Youth are finding new ways to survive the aftermath of a nuclear family disaster.

    The good news is we seem to be adapting. We are, in some sense, valuing extended families again. Pew Research Center found a record 64 million Americans living in multigenerational households in 2018. In 2016, Pew found the most common living arrangement for the 18-34 age group to be living with parents.

    We’re also expanding families beyond biological boundaries through shared housing units and groups for single parents. These new arrangments provide a way forward that doesn’t necessitate stay-at-home wives or gender discrimination. We’re finding ways to balance our want for individual freedom with our need for a family.

    Living together doesn’t necessarily make for less lonely people. We should be cautious about praising housing arrangements that can be born out of economic necessity, but research suggests many are choosing less lonely housing by choice. Living together is a good first step toward a more stable society.

    Youth are finding new ways to survive the aftermath of a nuclear family disaster. Make fun of the millennial in their parents’ garage if you want. But it looks to us like they might have found shelter from modern loneliness. They’re going to be OK.

  • We Still Need to Talk About Consent

    We Still Need to Talk About Consent

    Consent is crucial, but some just don’t get it

    Sexuality, sex awareness and sex etiquette are constantly in the spotlight, and yet, we still need to talk about consent.

    Humboldt State University recently experienced a disruption in its supposed safe space when allegations arose against a faculty member by a student. The investigation into that case is ongoing. Unfortunately, violations against consent aren’t limited to our own campus.

    Convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein’s case reveals consent still isn’t understood in the modern world. Weinstein was convicted of taking advantage of and sexually assaulting multiple women.

    Regardless of the circumstance, consent is crucial.

    Consent isn’t complex, but its idea continues to perplex those who fail to understand its simplicity. Yes means yes, and nothing else qualifies as a confirmation unless a yes is explicitly given.

    Affirmative consent needs to be practiced, not just by sexually active people, but by all people, whether or not it pertains to sexual activity. The ability to revoke consent also needs to be understood.

    Consent is far from a one-and-done response. It can be withdrawn at any moment.

    Even in professions where one uses their body for monetary gain, the right to revoke consent at any time remains. The refusal to take further action is linked to the right to control one’s body without interference from another.

    Everyone is born with this right. This universal entitlement to ownership of one’s body transcends all differences between individuals. All communities are entitled to their own bodies and to define consent in their own ways.

    In cases where verbal consent isn’t an option, written consent can suffice. Those in deaf and nonverbal communities can look to signing or reading a partner’s physical signals to help prevent confusion and facilitate mutual, nonverbal consent.

    It’s important to remember proper sex etiquette at all times. The following examples illustrate the ways in which consent is given and revoked:

    • Always ask your sexual partner if they’re ready and willing to engage in a sex act, without coercion.
    • You should cease sexual activities when someone says “Stop” or any other iteration of “No.” Expressing discomfort with an act is also a sign of hesitation, and should be considered before proceeding.
    • Anyone can withdraw consent at any time, even when a sex act is underway.
    • You should only engage in sex when all parties involved are in a coherent headspace, without the involvement of drugs and alcohol.
    • Body language doesn’t indicate consent to an act. Sexual arousal isn’t confirmation.
    • Do not use your position of power to persuade someone into any type of sex act. Professors, bosses, managers and even counselors have a responsibility to conduct themselves professionally, without sexual desires or encounters.

    Regardless of the circumstance, consent is crucial. You can never be too presumptive when asking about someone’s comfort, and you can never be too cautious when verifying consent.

  • We Need the Wisdom of Wikipedia

    We Need the Wisdom of Wikipedia

    Wikipedia shows collaboration is crucial for accuracy

    We’ve all been there. You’re sitting in a class. Your professor wants you to write a paper on the different types of asexual reproduction of the Sanderia malayensis jellyfish or some other arcane drivel. Your first reaction is to hit up Wikipedia. Then comes the kicker. You can’t cite Wikipedia. You scowl and snarl under your breath.

    Wikipedia deserves more credit than we give it. Turning a blind eye to Wikipedia as a reliable source is shortsighted and has implications beyond the realm of encyclopedias. Distrusting Wikipedia represents academia’s unwillingness to open the gates of collaborative truth-seeking.

    Scientific papers, meanwhile, are far from perfect.

    Contrary to what your professors may tell you, Wikipedia, as a source, is statistically just as accurate as published encyclopedias for most of its content. A 2005 study by the Nature research journal, “Internet encyclopaedias go head to head,” found errors in both encyclopedias, but among the entries tested, the difference in accuracy was small.

    Wikipedia, in their signature self-aware style, has reported on their own reliability as well. Wikipedia does not guarantee validity, but it is an invaluable research resource.

    Inaccurate information on Wikipedia is usually corrected quickly. Hyperlinked citations back up nearly every claim made on an entry. The Sanderia malayensis jellyfish’s page hosts six sources from international professionals, biologists and a handbook on poisonous jellies.

    Scientific papers, meanwhile, are far from perfect. Soft sciences have suggested cures to unhappiness or boosts to confidence through simple behavioral change, but as other researchers try to replicate the experiments, their conclusions are significantly different. This indicates a serious error in the scientific method. If science isn’t replicable, science is null.

    In the last few years, a plethora of papers have fallen under criticism after researchers have failed to reproduce their results—it’s been called the replication crisis. The crisis may have a few sources.

    Mistakes happen on Wikipedia too and it is always essential to be critical of anything read.

    First, it’s not hard to get published. The University of World News said in 2018 that too much scientific research is being published. It estimated nearly 30,000 scientific journals are in circulation, publishing approximately two million articles each year. They said the volume burdens the peer review system and makes it dysfunctional.

    Second, the media likes to be the first to report on news, including science news. Journalists can be wrong and often are when it comes to reporting on science, especially when they’re grasping to be the first to report on new findings. These bad practices report inaccurate, unconfirmed, flawed science to their audience before the study can be replicated.

    Mistakes happen on Wikipedia too and it is always essential to be critical of anything read. Search around, find supporting articles for any claim made and be aware that there may be flaws. But be able to recognize valid and sound knowledge.

    Critical review by the editors of Wikipedia—who can be any person—is what makes Wikipedia so powerful and so accurate. It’s the world’s largest encyclopedia—about 50 times larger than Britannica—with over six million entries and over 200,000 contributors. Wikipedia should serve as a banner for collaboration—especially between diverse groups.

    In “The wisdom of polarized crowds,” a 2019 study from Nature Human Behavior, researchers found politically-diverse teams created more accurate entries than teams with less political diversity.

    Wikipedia comes in clutch, often. Using it as a source may be frowned upon by professors, but a short chat with most of them and they’ll say Wikipedia is an excellent place to start. The website is a tool, not a cheat code. It would be ignorant to ignore it, but if it’s used appropriately, maybe, just maybe, we could learn something about jellyfish.

  • Let’s Make Media Coverage Equal, Always

    Let’s Make Media Coverage Equal, Always

    Emphasizing equity and integrity in the media February and beyond

    Humboldt State University celebrates Black Liberation Month, which promotes black excellence and achievement, every February.

    People of color are often covered by the media for achievement in athletics and entertainment, but rarely for academia, volunteer work or simple successes unless they’re a trailblazer in their field. More often than not, Blacks face the most discrimination in media.

    At HSU, Black Liberation month emphasizes the great achievements and progress in the Black community—but these often fall out of the public eye once February is over. This is a failure—the celebration of the Black community should extend through the year and into perpetuity. At The Lumberjack, we acknowledge the lack of representation blighting the mainstream media and our own newsroom. We strive to break the toxic cycle of misinformation and misinterpretation and promote the achievements of the Black community at HSU.

    “Blacks represent 37 percent of criminals shown in the news, but constitute 26 percent of those arrested on criminal charges. In contrast, news media portray whites as criminals 28 percent of the time, when FBI crime reports show they make up 77 percent of crime suspects.”

    Travis L. Dixon

    Modern media organizations filter the truths of the world, a behavior that has a significant impact on their audience. The way we absorb news depends on the way it’s delivered. Emphasizing equity and integrity in the media February and beyond

    The study, “A Dangerous Distortion of our Families,” by Travis L. Dixon, Ph.D from the University of Illinois, looked into media coverage from local and national media outlets and found they often warped the reality of Black families to fit the narrative of the big screen.

    “Blacks represent 37 percent of criminals shown in the news, but constitute 26 percent of those arrested on criminal charges,” Dixon wrote. “In contrast, news media portray whites as criminals 28 percent of the time, when FBI crime reports show they make up 77 percent of crime suspects.”

    The study, sponsored by The Washington Post, found that at best, media outlets promoted racially biased portrayals and myths that pathologize black families and idealize white families with respect to poverty and crime.

    At worst, the study found that media outlets amplified those inaccurate depictions for political and financial gain. They said such reporting reinforces debunked narratives that justify police brutality or promote economic policies that hurt not just Black families, but all families.

    Throughout February, throughout the year, into the next decade and into forever, we shall strive to accurately report on and represent the lives and achievements of the Black community at HSU. We commit ourselves to journalistic accuracy and integrity. We commit ourselves to the celebration of the liberation of our oppressed communities and we commit to support them on their path to self-realization.

  • Parody is Protected Speech

    Parody is Protected Speech

    HSU administration cannot tell student media what to publish

    Press at any capacity in the United States is protected by the First Amendment against federal censorship of speech. The government cannot make editorial decisions, retractions or content suggestions. Student press publications in California are protected not just by the First Amendment, but also by the California Student Free Expression Law of 1977, or California Education Code 48907.

    When a government entity such as a state university interferes with the press by policing publications on what is appropriate to publish, it inhibits the independence of the press.

    Recently, Humboldt State University administration sent out a school-wide email regarding material printed in a student parody newspaper, called The Dumberjack, found in an insert in the Nov. 20 issue of The Lumberjack.

    The public announcement accused the students in the parody news class that produced The Dumberjack of reinforcing rape culture and gender-based discrimination through a photo that depicted a “sexist ‘riddle’” which was displayed on a sign in a window of an all-female room at the College Creek Apartments.

    The school administration held The Dumberjack staff responsible for a joke on a sign they did not create nor stage. A student-journalist outside of the parody news class observed and documented campus culture with this photograph. The parody news class simply featured it in the paper and in no way amplified any perceived gender-based discrimination with the story that ran alongside the photo.

    Parody facilitates the palatability of relevant information through comedy.

    No one in The Dumberjack class or on The Lumberjack staff supports gender-based discrimination or wants to reinforce rape culture. But journalism, of any kind, is not public relations. The publication of a photo of a sign on campus does not represent endorsement of what the sign says. Journalism draws attention to troublesome realities by documenting them and showing them to the public. When a publication reveals a sign that a university finds offensive, the university’s focus ought to be on the sign, not on the journalists who documented it.

    Administration officials invited the class to have a conversation to “discuss the impact and implications of the cover photo.” The meeting was intended to be an open dialogue surrounding the development of “critical lenses.”

    Instead, on Thursday, Dec. 5, the class became the site of a direct act of administration intimidation.

    Two school officials—only one of whom had been momentarily invited—came to the class and lectured journalism students on how to make editorial decisions. Chair of the Sexual Assault Prevention Committee Kim Berry and Dean of Students Eboni Turnbow, both of whom are government employees, reprimanded a class of students educated in journalism ethics.

    The administration is demonstrating unprofessional behavior of questionable legality by attempting to contain this incident and filter what student press can and cannot print. The administration cannot tell student media what to publish.

    Parody writers take real world situations and use a critical lens to highlight a topic in a juxtaposed way. These satirical pieces can sometimes be offensive, but the key is that the subject matter is still being discussed.

    The goal of parody is to create a dialogue on topics that are either overshadowed or too controversial to be discussed openly. Parody facilitates the palatability of relevant information through comedy.

    The First Amendment protects speech, including satire and parody. Satire and parody are used as impressionistic language that aim to create commentary on sensitive issues through the use of humor, absurdity and exaggeration. Utilizing these writing tactics serves as a more approachable way of tackling uncomfortable yet prominent issues.

    Journalists aim to relay information in the most accurate and concise manner as possible. Censorship defeats that purpose. The government censoring the media is illegal and obstructs the transparency of journalism. It creates bias and subjectivity, as journalists become fearful of backlash for what they print.

    When censorship appeases a specific group of people, it’s a domino effect. Censoring one thing for a single group leads to censoring all material to please everyone. That defeats the purpose of journalism as an independent eye intended to expose overlooked issues.

    In today’s political climate, journalists are constantly under fire. The fourth estate, journalism, is as vital to uphold as the fifth estate, non-traditional media like parody news. When federal figures undermine the editorial freedom of a publication, even a parody news publication, a slippery slope follows in which government infringes upon the freedom of the press.

  • ‘OK Boomer,’ Let’s Set the Record Straight

    ‘OK Boomer,’ Let’s Set the Record Straight

    Millennials and Zoomers may be fed up, but ‘OK Boomer’ is not equivalent to a racial slur

    If you’re present on social media –or even if you read any of the major news organizations– you’ve probably heard of the latest linguistic controversy, “OK Boomer.”

    Memes have become a fundamental aspect of younger generations’ humor. They are used to convey vast amounts of information within a simple image or text post. Google defines memes as laughable images, text or videos that are replicated and spread quickly around the Internet.

    The “OK Boomer” trend started as just that, a meme. Unfortunately it has taken a new life and those outside of meme culture fail to realize the actual meaning behind the phrase.

    Boomers are those from the post-WWII baby boom era who were born from 1946 to 1964. Millennials are young adults born from 1981 to 1996. Generation Z, or zoomers, were born from 1997 to the present day.

    “OK Boomer” is used to dismiss the disdain older generations have against millennials and zoomers. The phrase can be used as an insult, but it’s often used to blatantly point out double standards that many boomer generation individuals subject younger generations to.

    Don’t worry, Boomer. It’s just a meme.

    The meme began as a way to passive aggressively, and humorously, let loose the frustrations that younger people have at the current state of the world–a world that was created and subsequently tarnished by the boomer generation.

    This comical phrase is by no means equivalent to a racial slur, as some people have insinuated.

    While “OK Boomer” can be misconstrued as a derogatory term against the older generations, it’s not meant to be hateful. Millennials and Zoomers simply found a way to comment on the older generation’s biases. This term isn’t even specifically about age, it’s about issues.

    Nevertheless, this phrase has hit the mainstream with news station stories and business marketing campaigns. Companies like Natural Light and Netflix are jumping on the bandwagon and are trying to appeal to today’s youth by using this meme slogan for marketing.

    Millennials and zoomers are fed up with the boomer generation feeding us disdainful comments on how to lead our lives.

    Boomers often look down upon younger generations and you can commonly hear boomer individuals using phrases that start with, “Back in my day,” or “When I was your age,” which are typically followed by an array of rhetoric that aim to condemn the lifestyles and decisions of younger generations.

    The majority of us zoomers and millennials are not entitled and arrogant as we are so often portrayed. In a general sense, we see and experience the injustices created by an inconsiderate generation, and feel a need to retaliate against the judgement that boomers perpetuate in a creative yet harmless way. We are trying to make them see their own corruption.

    Memes, and “OK Boomer” in particular, can confuse older generations because they don’t have the contextual knowledge that we’ve absorbed through the saturation of media messages surrounding us that help us able to understand pop culture or meme culture references.

    Any older generation will inherently look down upon its successors because as humans we are resistant to change. The fact that older generations now are offended by what the young people have to say just solidifies that they don’t understand what younger generations are expressing, so they react with scorn.

    The older generations fail to realize that we are fed up with how we’ve been viewed and treated by them. Our use of ‘OK Boomer’ is solely used to highlight this mistreatment.

    Overall, the use of this comical phrase isn’t meant to upset the older generations. It’s meant to inform them about the concerns younger generations have which don’t seem to be taken seriously by boomers. Don’t get offended, it’s just a meme.

  • Editorial: Out of Hydration Options

    Editorial: Out of Hydration Options

    Humboldt State needs more clean water fill stations

    Humboldt State banned single-use plastic water bottles in Fall 2011. In the eight years since, it seems HSU has hardly increased the amount of water fill stations on campus.

    Campus banning single-use plastic was the right thing to do. It’s progressive and environmentally friendly, two things Humboldt State prides itself on. But the least administrators could do is give us more than two ‘Hydration Stations’ to fill our own bottles.

    Nearly every building is home to a drinking fountain, but these fountains are outdated and many of them produce warm, ill-tasting water.

    The Lumberjack has highlighted the issue of on-campus stores selling single-use plastic sodas and sugary drinks in the past, but we’re here to hammer it home again.

    Disposable water bottles alone once contributed to a large portion of on-campus waste. Banning single-use plastic water bottles decreased that waste and even reduced HSU’s carbon footprint significantly. But campus makes waste with different products, ones filled with sugar and chemicals.

    You may be thinking that we should just bring our own bottle filled with water to school, and most of us do. But there are times where we forget, and others where we run out. When we run out of water, we run out of healthy options. If we refuse to gargle the room temperature wash that comes out of our out-dated fountains, what options are we left with? Pepsi, Gatorade, Fanta and Vitamin Water.

    It’s an insult to the student body and prospective students that HSU markets itself as pushing the bounds of sustainability when it continues to sell massive amounts of single-use plastic.

    Profit is held far above sustainability and student health. Are we surprised? Not in the least. HSU often prioritizes profits over student health (the windowless rooms in Creekview are a great example).

    If the school refuses to take action, then responsibility falls to us students. One of our only options for retaliation and action as a student body involves our purchasing power. Where students spend their money and what we say we will spend it on does create change. Attending Associated Students meetings and voicing concerns is another helpful tactic.

    We are grateful for HSU’s aim of a more sustainable campus and future through the reduction of plastic consumption. But HSU needs to give students more drinkable water sources. The university needs to prioritize student health and cut ties with brands that continue to use plastic, even if it hurts the bottom line.

    For a school that so desperately needs to increase enrollment and recruitment of students, HSU needs to remember to put effort into the students that are already here. Reputation can be everything, and this issue, just like our water, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

  • Miscommunications and Misdirection

    Miscommunications and Misdirection

    Hold PG&E accountable for its reckless and unprofessional behavior

    During the most recent Public Safety Power Shutoffs, the Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s communication with its customers was awful.

    The first time the utility shutoff power in Humboldt County was on Oct. 9. The county had less than 12 hours of notice for residents to prepare for a possible four-day outage. Humboldt was the only county in California to lose all power and initially wasn’t even on the list of affected counties.

    After the outage, Michael Lewis, PG&E’s senior vice president of electric operations, said that Humboldt County shouldn’t have lost power in the first place. Although extreme weather and fire risk were at play in other counties’ outages, Humboldt went dark because of scheduled maintenance on one of the transmission lines coming into the county.

    On Saturday, Oct. 26, reports from PG&E said only about 2,000 customers in Humboldt would be affected. Several hours later, PG&E corrected itself and acknowledged that all Humboldt residents would be hit with the outage.

    During the most recent PSPS, the utility released news that another outage would likely hit Humboldt early Tuesday morning. Additional updates said that while many residents would regain power, it was possible that residents still without it may continue to be in the dark through to Tuesday’s outage.

    When Tuesday morning came and went, locals wondered when the outage would hit. Those who regained power the day previous still had it, and conflicting reports from PG&E, the Redwood Coast Energy Authority and the Humboldt County Office of Emergency Services led to mass uncertainty about when –and if– the power would go out again.

    For those PG&E customers who tuned in to one of the company’s many streamed press conferences, they were forced to wade through jargon including “operational event,” “incident commander,” and the terribly-named “Public Safety Power Shutoffs.”

    Late Monday night, the Redwood Coast Energy Authority posted on Facebook that PG&E said that power in Northern Humboldt wouldn’t go out until 9 p.m. That same night, OES made its own Facebook post stating that PG&E said power was still planned to go out early in the morning.

    On Tuesday morning, OES continued to stand by what it had learned from PG&E.

    PG&E’s own updates from Tuesday morning listed the outage time for Northern Humboldt as 9 p.m., and as the day went on, that seemed to be likely.

    Humboldt State University had no better idea of when the power would go out, as it noted in its update on Tuesday morning.

    “HSU is seeking clarity from PG&E regarding the timing of a possible power shutdown,” HSU’s update said. “There has been conflicting information from the company, and in local news reports, over the last 24 hours.”

    PG&E later updated its estimated timing to 7 p.m., and then, around 5 p.m., it called off any PSPS for Humboldt at all. On Facebook, OES said PG&E had given it inaccurate information.

    “PG&E has provided the Humboldt County Office of Emergency Services (OES) inaccurate information regarding times of de-energization in our County,” OES said.

    Communication is everything. PG&E changing times of planned outages makes sense, especially since the outages are primarily based around weather patterns. But failing to provide accurate information to emergency services and county officials is ludicrous. The company’s communication strategies are unacceptable.

    As a community and state we need to hold PG&E accountable and remove ourselves from its firm corporate grip. These blackouts should be the push California needs to turn toward alternative energy and municipal utility boards, ridding the state of monopolized power once and for all.

  • Marijuana Legalization is a Race Issue

    Marijuana Legalization is a Race Issue

    Marijuana laws are enforced unequally and minority communities bear the brunt of the consequences

    Many states have voted on the legalization of marijuana, a schedule one drug, and 11 states have legalized recreational cannabis. Weed is now a large source of legal income in the U.S.

    Forbes shows that the top three states where recreational marijuana is legal profited over $4 billion in 2018 on cannabis sales. But according to a 2010 study by the American Civil Liberties Union, states waste over $3 billion a year in weed-related arrests.

    We believe states waste more time and taxpayer money by not legalizing and decriminalizing weed. Law enforcement often enforce weed laws unequally, with more arrests in underprivileged neighborhoods, which are often filled with people of color. According to the ACLU, black people are four times as likely than white people to be arrested for marijuana possession despite similar usage rates.

    We are fed up with blatant inequality and discrimination.

    In July 2016, a Minnesota police officer shot and killed black 32-year-old Philando Castile in his vehicle. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension investigated the case, and was told by the officer that he “feared for his life” due to the smell of marijuana and Castile’s lack of concern for the child in the vehicle. This ended in the officer’s acquittal.

    While most states don’t keep data for marijuana possession by Latinx individuals, New York City’s data shows that the Latinx community has the same rate of use as black and white individuals, but recent data shows that marijuana possession is the fourth most common cause of deportation.

    It’s obvious that many of those affected by these ludicrous laws are from black and brown communities. And it may be relevant to note that there is political gain to keep it this way, as many people who have been arrested for marijuana can no longer vote.

    This war on drugs, specifically the war on marijuana, is a war on communities of color. Children are left without parents and people are locked up for years on minor counts. And yet, even when white people commit similar crimes the punishments are all too different.

    Opioid addiction is at an all time highs in the states. It has largely affected white communities, but the amount of arrests is no where near that of other cultural communities when marijuana is involved.

    If treatment and repercussions are unequal, we need to understand that the system is flawed. When one group is given more freedom to make mistakes than another, it seems that there is a hidden agenda at work to keep white communities more prosperous.

    Drug laws are just one example of discriminatory regulations within the United States. Data shows that law enforcement agencies often treat people of color differently, our laws only add tension to the problem.

    As of now, 10 states plus Washington D.C. have legalized recreation marijuana and an additional 20 allow medicinal use. These states should quickly look into decriminalizing the drug fully. If we take steps to free individuals locked up for minor drug possession charges and use the money saved to focus on bigger issues, then we take one major step toward reforming the country’s unjust system.

    It may be a slow process, but it’s one that needs to happen now.

  • Editorial: College Athletes Deserve Compensation

    Editorial: College Athletes Deserve Compensation

    Playing collegiate sports and taking a full-time schedule is the equivalent of having two full-time jobs

    During an online-only episode of “The Shop,” California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 206, or the Fair Pay to Play Act on Sept. 30.

    Along with several other former college athletes, Newsom believes college athletes, especially Division I athletes, deserve compensation for their hard work and dedication to the game that makes their “bosses” rich.

    “Colleges reap billions from student athletes but block them from earning a single dollar,” Newsom tweeted. “That’s a bankrupt model.”

    Despite Humboldt State being a NCAA Division II program, we still agree that our athletes deserve some type of compensation based on the amount of revenue our athletic program brings in.

    “The Shop” is a HBO talk show owned under the digital sports media company Uninterpreted. During the episode, Newsom was accompanied by NBA star LeBron James and they both shared the news on Twitter by posting a video snippet.

    In a world that is so divided, sports can bring people together. Whether an athlete plays for a professional team or a college team, the support and compassion they receive from fans remains loyal.

    In professional sports, athletes sign contracts with a team or an organization. When they sign, they are agreeing to the specific payment details they were offered or that they negotiated with their organization. For collegiate sports, college athletes are offered a scholarship breakdown and have the decision of accepting it or not.

    However, anyone who is up to date with our budget crisis around campus knows that our athletic program probably receives close to no money to provide to our athletes. Especially considering that we still have athletes attending HSU out of pocket to participate in an intercollegiate sports.

    HSU may not seem like a great example when pushing the idea that college athletes deserve compensation, but the Fair Pay to Play Act doesn’t allow athletes to be paid by their university, it just gives them the leeway to find sponsorship and make money off their hard work.

    When we consider professional athletes, endorsement deals are contracted regularly. These deals allow companies to use athletes’ names, numbers and any other marketing facet that’s agreed upon, in exchange for money paid to the athlete. College athletes do not receive endorsement offers, but they still partake in similar marketing techniques that bring in revenue for their college and coaches.

    The counterargument to this case states that college athletes are provided a scholarship that pays their tuition and resources that help them get through the academic portion of school.

    Although this is true, many fail to realize the dedication and time commitment it takes to be a successful student-athlete. Being a student-athlete is essentially equivalent to holding two full-time jobs: studying and playing. This doesn’t leave time for a job off-campus to provide a steady source of income.

    The fact that colleges and head coaches make money off their players’ successes is ludicrous, especially when the players themselves aren’t receiving any portion of that revenue. It is this exact argument that Newsom brought to light.

    The proposed bill allows college athletes to receive a portion of the revenue that their college receives and sign endorsement deals like the pro athletes they aspire to be. Although the NCAA fought against the signing of this bill, Newsom stuck to his belief. He proposed providing the NCAA with a grace period to narrow down rules and regulations in hopes of making the transition smooth and effective. Therefore, the bill does not play any effect on college sports in California until Jan. 1, 2023.

  • Editorial: Impeachment Should Be Mandatory

    Editorial: Impeachment Should Be Mandatory

    Senate requires 2/3 majority to fully impeach and we hope they get it

    Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment investigation against President of the United States Donald Trump on Sept. 24. The motion to charge the president is long overdue and the Senate must not fail us when the time comes to remove Trump from office.

    The U.S. has been teased with impeachment since the Mueller report and the investigation into Russia’s interference with the 2016 presidential election, however, it took until now to initiate the formal process.

    This time, the abuse of power that pushed the democrats and Pelosi to act was a whistleblower complaint regarding a controversial phone call between Trump and Ukrianian President Volodymyr Zelensky from July.

    The White House released a manuscript on Sept. 25, laying out how Trump abused his position of presidential power by asking Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. At the time of the call, Trump was withholding millions of dollars worth of military assistance from Ukraine.

    This is a clear act of bribery; and asking a foreign power to dig up dirt for the sake of reelection is a clear abuse of power. But does it matter?

    In order to be impeached from office, according to Article 2 Section 4 of the constitution, “the president, vice president and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    The impeachment of a president is rare and has only happened twice in U.S. history. It’s important to understand that impeachment does not mean removal.

    The 17th President of the United States Andrew Johnson was impeached for removing an appointed official without the consent of Congress in Feb. 24, 1868. Johnson was acquitted based on a Senate vote.

    The 37th President of the United States Richard Nixon faced imminent impeachment but became the first president to resign in August 8, 1974. In a “you can’t fire me because I quit” fashion, Nixon left office before he could forcibly booted after the infamous Watergate Scandal where he facilitated political spying to aid with reelection.

    The 42nd President of the United States Bill Clinton was “impeached” but not necessarily removed. The House of Representatives impeached Clinton but just as with Johnson, the senate did not come to the necessary 2/3 majority agreement.

    Fast forward to 2019 and the recently exposed phone call.

    “…There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the persecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great,” Trump said in the phone call. “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”

    This refers to Hunter Biden’s employment with Burisma Holdings, a Ukrianian gas company, back in May 2014. Trump states Joe Biden used his influence and wealth to persuade Ukraine to remove the prosecutor investigating Burisma and Biden’s son. Trump then says the prosecutor was replaced within hours of the request.

    The House of Representatives claims the phone call was a turning point for many Democrats, who, after reading the transcript, began to consider impeachment seriously.

    The House initially bet on the Mueller report to initiate an impeachment inquiry, but the report failed to surface any firm presidential wrongdoings. Additionally, Pelosi wanted to be mindful of the approaching 2020 election, making an effort to not popularize Trump’s platform or sway voters.

    The process seems to be moving along quickly, but the trial is postponed until security surrounding the whistleblower’s identity and safety is finalized.

    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Shiff announced the whistleblower will testify “very soon.” Meanwhile, Schiff, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel and House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings issued Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer, a subpoena.

    “You [Giuliani] acted as an agent of the President in a scheme to advance his personal political interests by abusing the power of the Office of the President…” the subpoena said.

    The subpoena requires that Giuliani present “…communications, and other related documents, to the Committees in order to determine the full extent of this effort by the President and his Administration to press Ukraine to interfere in our 2020 presidential election” by Oct. 15.

    We can only hope the Senate will pull through this time and formally remove the 45th President of the United States from office.

  • Editorial: Follow the Money

    Editorial: Follow the Money

    Companies outed on social media for funding political advocacy groups

    A long list of companies that use profits to fund pro-Trump advocacy groups was recently published to several social media sites.

    This scandal begs an important question, are our purchases worth it if they support a larger cause, or person, we might not necessarily support ourselves?

    Companies including SoulCycle, Equinox, CVS and Taco Bell were just a few of those exposed on Twitter and Instagram.

    SoulCycle and Equinox were the first two companies to feel the heat. Equinox was quickly trending on Twitter but for all the wrong reasons. With hashtags such as: “#BoycottEquinox” and “#BoycottSoulCycle,” both companies went under fire from paying subscribers.

    The social media frenzy didn’t go without notice for long, as both gym facilities soon released a public disclaimer on social media. Both claimed that the day-to-day operations are in no way affected or influenced by the owner, Stephen Ross, and his political affiliations.

    The boycott continues as news of Ross hosting a fundraiser for Trump in the Hamptons surfaced with tickets costing as much as $250,000.

    SoulCycle and Equinox were not the only major players under scrutiny.

    The boycott hashtag trend lives on with CVS. “#BoycottCVS” was created as the company donated $35,000 to the Trump Victory PAC (Political Action Committee), becoming one of four biggest donors involved in the reelection campaign. Additionally, they donated $500,000 to America First Policies in 2018.

    America First Policies, is a “non-profit organization supporting key policy initiatives that will work for all citizens in our country and put America first,” however, Mike Pence’s face is the first thing you see upon opening the homepage of the website; giving a strong indication of who is involved and what political beliefs are represented.

    Recently, the organization has been accused of being racist, homophobic, sexist and anti-Muslim after several outbursts containing these sentiments from the advocacy director were found online.

    Taco Bell, specifically the Taco PAC, is reportedly one of four companies to donate the most to the Trump election campaign in 2016. In regards to the 2020 election, however, no donations have currently been made to the Trump PAC.

    There are larger consequences to the spending decisions we make. This new information should make us challenge our mindfulness behind the actual value behind a purchase, knowing our money, in a way, is going toward supporting a larger cause. Ultimately, losing leverage and control over our money and what it is funding is an uncomfortable reality.

    However, between public disapproval and social media boycotts, the power in being a consumer is important to remember. Consumers have the power to persuade companies. All the recent public outcry towards Taco Bell has coincided with the withholding of any 2020 campaign donations from them and that is no coincidence.

    Regardless, the power of being a consumer is something we often forget and take for granted. The next time you find yourself in a Taco Bell drive-thru, ask yourself: is the taco really worth the dollar?

  • Four score and seven years later

    Four score and seven years later

    We need proper advising. Graduation is upon us, yet many students find themselves coming back next semester because they did not receive enough units to complete the graduation requirement. More students are taking more than four years to get their diplomas, and they have to pay even if they only need one or two classes. Freshman are told to take 15 units or more to graduate in four years, an unrealistic pressure to put on an 18-year-old. If you’re living on your own for the first time and taking on a financial burden taking more than 15 units could be too much.  Other students are told to “double-dip” classes. “Double-dipping” is where classes count for two general education classes rather than just one. “Double-dipping” classes leaves a lot more room for students to finish up their major courses. But if some students finish their general education requirements and their major requirements too early they are left with elective credits to make up before meeting the 120 unit cap to graduate and earn their Bachelor’s degree. Some classes are only offered every other semester, and some are offered every two or four years which makes it hard for students to plan their semesters accordingly. This is especially a struggle for transfer students with upper division courses. Transfer students take some upper division courses that they need to take again at HSU. There is a lack of communication with advisors and students. Sometimes advisors are not available to students to discuss their future at HSU. Advisors aren’t fully trained to actually advise students on which classes to take. The university needs to train their staff to the fullest to be able to advise students accordingly. Students should make a four year plan of their classes so they could earn their bachelor’s degree in four years.