By MEAGAN HUME
Program Assistant
Center for Poverty Research

While I appreciate Mr. Collins’ attempt to lightly interpret masculinity in the opinion piece, “Scruff, Rough and Ready,” I believe that he is sadly misguided in the true meaning of No-Shave November, or as it has come to be called, Movember.

No-Shave November is not, as he suggests, emblematic of a rite-of-passage for the testosterone-challenged — it is a month in which those who wish to grow facial hair do so for awareness and charity.

Movember began in 2003 with a group of 30 Australian men who agreed to grow facial hair in the month of November in order to raise awareness for men’s health, specifically prostate health. Since then, it has grown worldwide and now covers a broad range of men’s health issues. There are even Mo Sistas, women who work to promote the issue of men’s health throughout the month of November.

What saddens me about Mr. Collins’ opinion is that he somehow makes a cursory correlation between facial hair and masculinity without getting at the root of the issue: Men are less likely to visit a doctor for health reasons and men are less likely to engage in proactive health measurements.

The correlation between facial hair and Movember is deeper than bravado and superheroes, it is through the societal masculine marker of facial hair that Movember hopes to spark conversations about something not traditionally masculine — health.

I hope that Mr. Collins and those students growing facial hair throughout the rest of the month of November take this to heart and start growing with a cause and not just to lightheartedly perpetuate archaic norms.

To find out more about Movember in the United States, visit us.movember.com.

Health Education & Promotion (HEP) would like to thank Katelyn Ringrose for her continued focus on the topic of sexual health, especially the Nov. 14 column focusing on sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

While it is true that there are a variety of STIs, it is important for students to be aware that the most common bacterial STI among UC Davis students is chlamydia.

Studies show that approximately 50 percent of men and 75 percent of women will not show symptoms for chlamydia and, if left untreated, this infection can cause long-term consequences for both men and women.

The good news is that chlamydia is easily curable with antibiotics and can be detected with a simple urine test. In fact, Student Health and Counseling Services (SHCS) offers a low-cost combined chlamydia and gonorrhea test that can be easily requested online through Health-e-Messaging (shcs.ucdavis.edu/hem).

This online option allows students, in most circumstances, to drop by the SHCS Laboratory and complete the process without making an appointment with a provider.

For students with questions about SHCS STI testing services, visit shcs.ucdavis.edu/sti.

Jason B. Spitzer, MPH
Sexual, Social & Stress Health Educator
Health Education & Promotion
UC Davis Student Health & Counseling Services

There’s a thing with schools about suspension and expulsion. Oftentimes, these penalties are their go-to punishments. Schools don’t realize, however, that these punishments are ineffective.

The problem is that many of the chronic trouble-making students place no value on school access. They don’t want to be there. Telling them that they’ll be suspended or expelled for breaking rules is meaningless.

Schools need to find a new way of doing things that adjusts or corrects a student’s behavior instead of just throwing them out.

Suspensions and expulsions are very shortsighted methods. The students that get expelled end up without a high school diploma, or are let back into school after a year. In the former case, they will have greater difficulty finding jobs and may end up impoverished, taking away from society and the economy when they could instead be productive, contributing citizens. In the latter case, they return to school, most likely unchanged, and continue to hamper the education of their fellow students.

Instead of suspension and expulsion, which I believe do more harm than good, I advocate school-administered character development.

Now, before somebody yells, “Big Brother is watching,” yes, this is indeed a slippery slope that could potentially slide into a nightmare of Orwellian propaganda and doublethink. But I think there is a very good reason why this needs to happen.

Students who continuously break rules and disrespect their instructors have a negative impact upon their fellow students. The actions of these students contribute to a more unsafe school environment. They waste the time of their teachers, and they negatively affect the learning experiences of their peers.

Oftentimes, behavioral issues seem to stem from a lack of parental guidance, as well as overexposure to media and peers. However, pointing a finger at parents and asking them to pick up the ball hasn’t helped.

There is a gap in responsibility that must be closed. If parents are not taking responsibility for the development of their child’s character, then the school should.

Ideally, school-administered character development would take the form of hired or voluntary adults acting as mentors. If this is not viable, an alternative can also be older, well-behaved students.

These mentors would be assigned troubled students, preferably one-on-one, or at least, one at a time. They would be the role models of their students, teaching them how to behave and what is right or wrong.

If the mentor is successful, their student will no longer be disruptive in class and will be able to focus and understand the material in class better. As an added benefit, the student will have a helpful, supportive adult from whom they can seek advice from.

In order for this to work, however, the mentor will need a strong bond with their student. To facilitate this, the pair should meet at least every other day, weekends included. This way, the mentor can become familiar with the student’s personality, issues and environment, allowing the mentor to assist the student in their difficulties.

I can already hear screams of horror. This system infringes completely on the personal life and privacy of the student and impugns upon the authority of the parents, as well as their familial bonds. In a way, it’s a merging of a student’s personal life with the public.

But is that such a bad thing in cases such as these? Without guidance, troubled children could easily slip into the multitude of the lost, becoming part of a growing horde of human beings in terrible circumstances. But that doesn’t have to happen. These people can be saved before they fall through the cracks in society.

Simply hosting character development classes won’t cut it. Neither will having regular teachers overseeing their development; teachers will be much too busy with academic material.

To actually affect the character of a person, interaction must occur on a personal level, in a way that appeals to the person’s wants, needs and fears. Many troubled students come from broken families, or are neglected or outright abused. However, this isn’t something that’s directly fixable on a government level. Attempts to address these issues have thus far had limited effect. A mentorship program or system can step in and reverse, or at least limit, the damage to these children and adolescents. For that reason, I propose mentorship, at the very least, as something to consider.

Tell DERRICK LEU your thoughts about the viability or alternatives of a mentorship program at derleu@ucdavis.edu.

The Aggie Editorial Board would like to congratulate and welcome the newly elected Fall 2012 ASUCD senators: Armando Figueroa and Alyson Sagala of the SMART slate, Tal Topf and Felicia Ong of the NOW slate, as well as independents Liam Burke and Maxwell Kappes.

Overall, we were impressed by this year’s candidates and campaigns. We applaud all who ran and appreciate their commitment to encouraging students to vote. At 22 percent, voter turnout was the second highest it’s been for a fall election in the last 10 years. While it’s still pretty pathetic, we are impressed by the candidates’ ability to garner votes.

We’d also like to extend our welcome by offering some advice that we’ve learned from the past.

1. Go to every senate meeting. We understand that the meetings can be long and grueling. But as an elected senator, going to meetings is a required part of your job. You have the responsibility of being the intermediary for UC Davis students.

2. Get to know campus committees and organizations. Be aware of what occurs in them and how you can help. These committees and organizations are part of the association’s backbone and are vital to students.

3. Hold office hours. Students chose you for a reason, be it your experience, platforms, personality, looks or all of the above. So be proactive and make a point in assisting these students who voted for you. Make it clear when your office hours are and invite students — don’t expect them to come to you.

4. Avoid petty politics. When there’s a room full of senators, there’s bound to be disagreements. We understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinions; however, we’d like it if you could be SMART and Independent NOW. Since there’s equal standing – two senators from each slate – we hope to see less polarization on the table and more impartiality.

We can’t wait to see what you’ll bring to UC Davis.