University’s own report card in need of much improvement

Originally published December 15, 2009 for the Daily Illini’s fall 2009 semester-in-review edition.

Here we are at the end of another semester, final exams the only thing standing between students and their grades. After agonizing over last assignments, projects, and now tests, we still get to play the torturous waiting game until grades are posted.

Thankfully, the University doesn’t have to wait for its report card. I’ve taken the liberty of compiling some of the biggest areas of concern this fall.

So, without further ado, U of I’s final semester grades:

Efficiency: D.

Notes: Hey, remember Lincoln Hall, that building people used years ago for class or something? It’s been closed for so long most people can’t remember when they had a class in there. Of course, the building was closed for important reasons—namely, sitting unused until the legislature and Gov. Quinn sort of maybe approved the idea of funding for renovations in July and December 2009. The university began relocating classes in the fall of 2008, doesn’t plan to begin renovations until 2010, and won’t be finished until the fall semester of 2012.

Integrity: F.

Notes: Ex-Chancellor Herman sent out a mass e-mail way back in May the day the Chicago Tribune broke their “Clout Goes to College” series, which publicly revealed the existence of a clout list used in the university’s admissions process. The scandal continued into the fall, rocking student and university legislative bodies way more than the mostly-apathetic student body.

At some point, many of the members of the Board of Trustees got the hint and resigned. At least Joe White knew when to throw in the towel.

But not Herman! He hung on until the bitter end, and for his efforts, was reward with a year of paid sabbatical and a cushy teaching gig with a $240,000 salary.

The moral of this story: you can make big bucks tarnishing the reputation of a public institution founded as a land-grant university. You can also make big bucks being an untouchable Illinois legislator, none of whom were punished for their explicit involvement in the clout mess.

Budgeting Skills: F.

Notes: Speaking of Herman’s professorial salary, let’s consider the university’s ability to manage its finances.

We can apparently afford $115,000 paychecks and greater for people like Niranjan Shah’s (the ex-president of the Board of Trustees) future son-in-law, who was going to be employed here for less than nine months. But we still needed to raise student fees in November for the next academic year, and though the tuition rate is still a nebulous issue right now, I can guarantee that next fall’s new students will face a price hike.

Not to mention, of course, that since the Graduate Employees’ Organization’s contract ended in August (and well before), the University argued that it could not afford any increase in salary for TAs and GAs.

Knowing that the request for increased payment would anger people without adequate information on the strike situation (read: undergraduates), the University purposely argued that the proposed wage increase was the primary issue at hand.

Ouch, U of I. Sounds like you’ve got some room for improvement—no Dean’s List this semester. Try again in the spring.

Chelsea is a senior in LAS.

Hey you! Yes, you! This is a wake-up call

Originally published December 10, 2009. This was my last regular column for the Daily Illini.

Some of you might remember the first opinions column I wrote for The Daily Illini way back during the spring semester of 2008. It was terrible.

A year and a half later, some of you might still think my writing is terrible, but at least you’ve been reading my column on a semi-regular basis.

Well, to everyone out there, from those who find me frustrating to those who look forward to my column every week, I have an announcement.

I’m graduating Dec. 19. This is my last regular column.

When I started this, I didn’t quite know how to approach the writing of an opinions column. Obviously, my opinion needed to be apparent in my work, but I’ll be the first person to say that I spent my first semester floundering around, trying to find my niche.

I wasn’t sure what kinds of subjects to cover or what gave my opinion that little something extra — that distinction that merited my getting published in the first place.

My attitude was, and still is, that everyone and their mother has a perspective on politics and political activity. I didn’t want to be another columnist that dealt with how much I love or hate a president, a legislator, or political rhetoric. Over the time that I’ve had the privilege to write a column for the DI, I’ve tried to focus instead on events and perspectives that people aren’t talking about. I’ve felt that above all, my personal focus on social justice issues is what set me apart from other columnists, and worked to bring my interests and concerns to you.

What I care about most in writing this column is not whether my opinion meshed with yours, but what you took away as a reader. While it maybe seems counterintuitive to writing an opinions column, I’ve never felt that my opinion was the most important part of my work.

Rather, what I strive to do in anything I undertake is offer others information about a topic they may never have previously encountered. Whether our opinions coincide, I aim to encourage others to think critically about the important things that many politicians and columnists overlook.

I hope that, especially after this wild and crazy semester, students here have been shaken from their self-centered stupor long enough to realize how much is going on under the hood of their education. Developing at the very least an awareness of our immediate community — this campus — is one of the most crucial skills that should come out of the college experience.

In the same vein, the role of an opinions columnist should always be to issue a wake-up call — to further develop the awareness that’s begun to take root. Whether I was successful, that’s always been my goal.

So, if you’re awake out there, I have one request: Issue a wake-up call of your own. No matter what your specialty is, find a way to share your knowledge with others. Empower them. Give them the tools they need to think critically and reach their own conclusions, whether you reach them through activism, casual conversation, artwork … or an opinions column.

Most of all, never stop seeking information. There’s nothing more important that you can bring to the table than knowledge. You can’t share it if you’ve got nothing to share in the first place. Search far and wide, search what you think you know, search for the stuff no one is talking about.

Everything begins with you.

Chelsea is a senior in LAS.

U.S. must fight proposed Ugandan anti-LGBT law

Originally published December 3, 2009.

AIDS Awareness Month began with World AIDS Day on Tuesday. The color red was everywhere, and discussion ensued on promises and goals for the year to come.

But in the HIV/AIDS conversation, no topic has been hotter in the last few weeks than Uganda. A country hit hard by HIV/AIDS, Uganda has benefited from U.S. funding in its struggle against the disease since President Bush set up the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief in 2003. Ugandan Christian ministries have also increasingly received financial contributions from conservative American anti-LGBT figures like Pastor Rick Warren.

The relationships of people like Warren, Scott Lively, and Don Schmierer with Ugandan churches aren’t the only cause of extreme homophobia in the country. But their influence, coupled with continued U.S. financial support to combat HIV/AIDS, has enabled and encouraged Ugandan leaders to target LGBT individuals as scapegoats.

Ugandan law already criminalizes same-sex sexual activity. But as far back as mid-October, Ugandan legislators have been considering a law that would make “repeat offenses” and sexual interaction with HIV-positive individuals punishable by death.

Somehow, it’s taken until the end of November for most people in the U.S. to even begin talking about this despicable legislation. More importantly, the person who should be talking about it—Rick Warren, someone with undeniable financial and ideological involvement in the development of the law—refuses to “take sides” in any discussion of the issue. Even Lively, author of The Pink Swastika (which likens being gay or lesbian to Nazism) has suggested that this new law is a bit extreme.

In addition to being a flagrant violation of human rights and essentially legalizing genocide, Uganda’s proposed law reinforces attitudes that impede the ability to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS. It mistakenly singles out the LGBT community as a huge cause of HIV/AIDS. It also prevents any LGBT individuals from seeking information about safe sex in a same-sex context and from seeking treatment if HIV-positive.

In addition, the law would attempt to force others to inform on people they believe to be gay or lesbian within 24 hours of suspected same-sex sexual interaction. If they don’t, they could face up to three years in jail. If this doesn’t sound like a witch hunt, I don’t know what does.

In this particular circumstance, though, something can still be done.

First, Rick Warren needs to come clean. At the moment, his money speaks for him.

His current choice to keep mum about the subject demonstrates quite clearly that he supports legalized genocide in Uganda because he can’t openly fund its promotion in the United States. If this isn’t the case, then he needs to stand up and say it. Otherwise, he might as well be as ragingly bigoted as Fred Phelps instead of hiding behind his false “respectful evangelical” demeanor.

Second, the United States needs to step up to the plate and engage with the Ugandan government about this appalling proposal. We cannot continue to fund efforts to treat and stop HIV/AIDS in a country which dumps undue blame on a group of people and hopes to wipe them out. It must be communicated that we will not fund fatal prejudice.

Anyone’s individual feelings about the LGBT community aside, it is imperative to protect their rights as human beings. While we argue about LGBT individuals’ rights as American citizens to marry, to live free from discrimination, and whether it’s okay for Adam Lambert to kiss another man on television, the developing situation in Uganda is a question of life or death.

In making commitments for the coming year to do more in the fight against HIV/AIDS, I cannot imagine anything greater than dedication to the protection of the lives of those being unduly persecuted for the existence of a disease that does not discriminate in its choice of victims. We need to take responsibility for a problem aggravated to this point by our own countrymen.

Chelsea is a senior in LAS.

Strike at UI to have long-lasting effects

Originally published November 19, 2009.

It’s been a crazy week on campus, but ultimately one that offered an unprecedented experience for University of Illinois students. Regardless of the many different opinions expressed by students, faculty, and staff, one of the most important things to take away from the GEO strike is understanding—understanding of what a strike means, its protocol, its causes, and its effects.

Like many students, especially American ones, I had never experienced or even really seen a strike prior to Monday. I can only remember that when I was much younger, the teachers at my elementary school went on strike.

Being somewhere between four and eight years old, I was more curious than upset. I liked not having any class for days on end. I had no idea what was at stake for my instructors or what was even happening.

Since then, strikes continued to remain only on the periphery of my life, just stories on the news. That is, until recently, as the possibility of a GEO strike loomed large while the University continued to act as though ignoring the problem they created would make it disappear.

As my TAs discussed strike and picket procedures last week, the whole idea was suddenly both wild and real.

Walking out at 7:45 Monday morning to rally in the rain threw off my sense of time, as if I’d stepped into an effort to stop it. In a way it was, as graduate employees marched, shouted, carried signs and played makeshift instruments on the main quad, halting their respective classes. When Tuesday afternoon rolled around I felt like I was in an endless Saturday and had to remind myself of my normal schedule.

The sounds of chanting and homemade noisemakers drifted around the edges of the quad, easy to hear as I passed its south side on my way to a relocated class. It was exciting and disconcerting.

The noise was a very distant cousin to the din of extreme political action, like rioting. It was the softest murmur of violence potential within any opinionated activity. Demonstrations like this, harmless as they may seem, are where struggles—both physical and political—begin.

And yet it’s an impressive feat, equal to the swift, peaceful trade-out of one elected official for another, standard practice in the U.S. but sometimes notoriously difficult to enact elsewhere. A strike is democracy in action.

And that’s cause for excitement—people working hard to organize and spread information, forcing others to think critically about their own opinions.

With some of that thinking came support from a variety of places—from faculty here and across the nation; from graduate employee unions at other institutions; from other local unions; from undergraduate students and university staff and from people in the community. Classes were cancelled, relocated, and voluntarily not attended.

In the hours of picketing Monday and Tuesday, it was impressive to see a community mobilized on so many fronts.

While a strike is never a desirable outcome, witnessing our thankfully very brief one isn’t something I’ll forget anytime soon. Its execution and the factors leading up to it (as well as its still-unfolding aftermath) offer a huge opportunity for learning about the nature of contractual labor agreements, community organization and what a strike can be.

In addition, this strike is extreme encouragement for students to be aware of what’s going on around them. It’s easy to ignore things on this campus and in this community, and the strike fought our tendencies toward ignorance and apathy. Sometimes it’s the things that seem small that can have the greatest and most direct impact not only our education, but our lives.

Most importantly, at the heart of a strike regarding tuition waivers is the ongoing battle over the affordability and privatization of college education. This is only the beginning of that war, and a signal that we need to do more than simply pay attention. We must act.

Chelsea is a senior in LAS.

Reports on Fort Hood shouldn’t promote Islamophobia

Originally published November 12, 2009. This column was given two different headlines. In the Nov. 12 print edition, it was “Some factors forgotten in Fort Hood shooting”. Online, it ran as “Reports on Fort Hood shouldn’t promote Islamophobia”.

One week ago, a man killed thirteen and wounded another 29 in an unexpected shooting spree at Fort Hood in Texas. When news sources revealed his name, people suddenly forgot that he is a single, Virginia-born, 39-year-old Army psychiatrist who has served since 1995, and had been recently informed of his upcoming deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan.

But a name like Nidal Malik Hasan attracts a lot of attention from the press and the public these days.

News reports continue to emerge that focus almost solely on Hasan’s Muslim background—e-mail exchanges with radical imam Anwar al-Aulaqi regarding a research paper, a presentation concerned with American Muslims’ potential personal reactions to waging a war against other Muslims, and much more.

The AP and ABC made sure to mention soldiers’ speculative claims that they heard Hasan yell “Allahu akbar!” during the violence last week. On Monday, Reuters, rather than identify him as a Virginian or even of the nationality of his parents, simply said that Hasan is “a Muslim born in the United States of immigrant parents.”

It’s interesting that the only word used to describe him in a very brief report is his religious preference.

Popular news media seems devoted to stripping all of the other details from this horrible event, leaving the public with two assertions—that Hasan is a Muslim and a terrorist.

It seems likely that Hasan’s perspectives on the United States, its overseas conflicts, and his religion factored into his extreme actions.

But as the press and the government mull over how this situation could have been prevented, all they’re doing is debating over something that doesn’t really have a clear solution.

It is in no way acceptable to seek out Muslims in the military and investigate their behavior and correspondences without a concrete instance of questionable action on the part of an individual.

On top of that, it’s another nigh-impossible task to create regulations that give investigators further scope over personal data and the power to decide what is potentially dangerous.

Rather than wade into the quagmire of whether others’ inaction in approaching Hasan had to do with some misguided sense of “political correctness,” the greater issues at hand are basic oversights on the part of others at Fort Hood.

How did a psychiatrist get a potentially unregistered civilian handgun onto a base? How did a military mental health professional with potentially serious emotional and psychological issues get out of his own standard psychiatric examinations?

It’s not to say that Hasan’s religion shouldn’t be discussed if it’s proven to be the primary motive for his appalling behavior, and in his circumstance, it may well be. But most of the presentation of information concerning his beliefs is the same kind of sensationalist fear-mongering that’s put Muslims in such a compromised position in the U.S. in the first place.

While we continue to seek justice in the aftermath of such a terrible crime, it is deeply important that we remember one person who identifies in any particular way—Christian, Latino, gay, American, Muslim—is not an example of everyone else who identifies the same way.

Other people who are observant Muslims, who have names that others could construe as “Middle Eastern,” and the like should not be forced to cringe as they listen to the news, hoping that actions of one single human being will not reflect upon their own.

Chelsea is a senior in LAS.