As Aggie students, we believe that our fellow students deserve and want to hear from both candidates seeking to represent us in Congress, so we can’t help but notice that Colusa County supervisor Kim Vann has mostly avoided our campus.

I remember in middle school and high school, I had to attend yearly presentations of my school’s zero-tolerance policies. The speaker would stand before a crowd of students and tell us what we weren’t allowed to do or bring to school, going on to say that if we broke the rules, the school would suspend or expel us.

In recent times, there have been events where children as young as six were suspended, expelled or sent to reform school for having a cutting knife in their lunchboxes. Such actions have also been taken against high school and middle school students for alcohol, penknives in cars and even aspirins and cough drops.

A zero-tolerance policy is a rule system that basically says, “If you bring any banned objects to school or cause any trouble on campus, you will be punished, no questions asked.”

The most recent information provided by the National Center for Education Statistics indicates that of 767,900 serious disciplinary actions taken in 2007 to 2008 by schools nationwide such as suspension, expulsion, or a school transfer — 327,100 were for insubordination and 271,800 for physical attacks. That’s 21.4 and 31.5 percent, respectively, of all actions. In comparison, 2.8 percent of actions were for possession of a firearm or explosive, 15.3 for possession of a weapon other than a firearm or explosive, and 19.3 and 9.8 percent for drugs and alcohol.

Really? Of all actions taken, 21.4 percent are for insubordination? Isn’t that a bit much? And I have to wonder, how many eating utensils and cutting tools were classified as “weapons that aren’t firearms?”

Public attention has reached the point where the American Psychological Association formed a Zero Tolerance Task Force to study the effects of zero tolerance on students. In fact, their December 2008 publication findings countered several key arguments for the implementation of zero tolerance.

Normally, zero-tolerance proponents say that removing troublesome students creates a better learning environment. However, the study notes a “negative relationship between the use of school suspension and expulsion and school-wide academic achievement, even when controlling for demographics such as socioeconomic status,” showing that a zero-tolerance policy does not actually improve a school’s learning environment.

Proponents also frequently say that zero tolerance deters students from causing trouble, making them better behaved. The association, though, found that “in the long term, school suspension and expulsion are moderately associated with a higher likelihood of school dropout and failure to graduate on time.”

The association also discovered that zero-tolerance policies frequently disrupt the development of adolescence and have contributed to the expansion of juvenile delinquency and the “school-to-prison pipeline.”

This situation seems problematic to me. Schools should be able to create a learning environment without stunting the mental growth of students, while doing their best to retain students and guide them into becoming functioning adults.

So what are some ways to fix the situation?

A popular one is greater discretion on the part of the principal and the teachers. If something is clearly accidental or not harmful, then a brief chat should be more than enough. There’s no need to expel or suspend for minor things.

Expulsion and suspension should be reserved for the most serious cases. Colleges are often made aware of behavioral problems of applicants, and will reject people on the basis of expulsion or suspension alone. It’s completely unfair for a student to have their chances ruined for accidentally bringing a lighter or painkiller to school.

If detention doesn’t work for minor incidents, perhaps mandatory community service might help. A weekend caring for or spending time with the elderly could potentially strengthen school-community bonds and teach the student about being humane.

Most of the zero-tolerance policies for elementary school students should be stripped away. It’s not that they shouldn’t be punished, but that it’s pointless and counterproductive to suspend or expel an eight-year-old. You’re more likely to damage the child’s perceptions than make things better.

It is of crucial importance to protect children in school, especially with the prevalence of gangs, school shootings and fighting. But that doesn’t mean schools can go overboard in their actions. Zero tolerance is a policy with no leeway for reasoning on a subject matter that requires evaluation on a case-by-case basis.

End the zero thought in zero tolerance, and help the children of America truly reach their potential.

Tell DERRICK LEU your thoughts on zero tolerance at derleu@ucdavis.edu 

The Love Lab is available Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Wednesday 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., at the HEP office on the third floor of the Student Health and Wellness Center (SH&WC), located across from the ARC. Students can “like” the UCD Love Lab Facebook page for updates on when the Love Lab will visit other campus locations, such as at the ARC on many Thursday evenings. There is also a pharmacy on the first floor of the SH&WC where students can purchase 10 condoms for only $1.50. Lastly, we recommend that students check out our condom map on the Davis Wiki (daviswiki.org/Sexual_Health_Resources) for locations they can visit even late at night or on the weekend if the need for safer sex products arises.

Sam Wall and Rosa Gonzalez
Sexual Health Student Assistants
Health Education and Promotion

In an effort to foster communication between students and the UC Davis administration, the 2012-13 Student Assistants to the Chancellor (SAC) have been inviting undergraduates to attend a breakfast series in the dining commons.

We are happy to see the administration make an effort to meet with students on a regular basis.

It’s great that students now have the chance to voice their opinions and concerns to administrators, all while remaining on familiar terrain. Since offices are intimidating, they often prevent such interactions from taking place. We hope to see these programs expand and we hope the chancellor continues to come.

The breakfasts take place from 8 to 9:30 a.m., and they are free for the selected individuals. The SAC would like to keep groups small so that all participants have the opportunity to speak, which means that not all applicants can be accommodated.  However, students are encouraged to apply via ucdsac.wufoo.com/forms/fall-2012-meals-with-mrak.

As much as safe-sex promotion on campus helps stop unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs, it makes it way more difficult to stay abstinent in college. It almost makes me embarrassed to be a virgin.

But no matter how hard it is for me, guys seem to get the most social pressure. What with “bounce what you twerkin’ with” playing at the clubs and 10 free condoms available a day at the Love Lab, the temptation is all the more unbearable. So I found some good-looking college virgins to tell us what goes through their heads. (Names have been changed to protect their privacy. Also, this is not a judgment on people who don’t practice chastity — it’s an open dialogue for people who do).

First is Sam, a tall, dark and handsome biomedical engineering third-year. He says it’s difficult not to think about sex when he finds girls so attractive. But Sam is determined to wait for his future wife just as he hopes she’ll also wait for him.

Sam’s friends joke that they’ll throw him a party when he finally loses his virginity. But when he has serious struggles, he looks to famous virgins for hope such as Jordin Sparks, the Jonas Brothers, and Victoria’s Secret Model Adriana Lima, who didn’t have sex until she got married at 27.

And this isn’t just a heterosexual struggle. Take Ben, for example.

“People often have homophobic reactions when they hear about my ideals, counting it as just another reason why I’m not really a man,” says Ben, a fourth-year studying to become a social worker. “But even before realizing I was gay, I still had a strong understanding of why it’s important for me to save sex until marriage.”

The complex issue is tricky to discuss with both his Catholic community and his gay community.

“I can see why people may not understand. It’s not really common for young people to have these two identities and care for both.”

Ben enjoys going to gay-friendly venues in San Francisco, but doesn’t always like the atmosphere. “Sometimes I just want to go to the club to dance and make friends … but things just always got to get sexual, don’t they?”

Choosing to be a virgin also affects your partners. Take Alex, who, because of his high school sweetheart of five years, ended up pursuing the road of chastity.

Unlike Sam and Ben, Alex quite enjoyed previous escapades with past girlfriends. But Jessie has set a whole new standard for him. “She knows what she wants and sticks to it, and that inspires me to better myself.”

Females often respond with outbursts of “How cute!” when they hear about Alex and Jessie. Males may say incredulous things like “You haven’t gotten any in how many years?” and “You can’t tell me you’re not tapping that.”

But those comments don’t bother Alex. He points out that if you take the sex out of many college relationships, you’re usually left with bored, cranky people who don’t like each other as much as they thought they did.

Alex estimates that 75 percent of the time he spent with his last girlfriend was devoted to having sex while the rest was spent eating and watching TV.

Because he and Jessie never go all the way, they’re forced to be creative and find other ways to spend their time.

“Not going to lie though, I hate that she’s Catholic sometimes. I’m like, ‘Damn it, woman! Why must you stick to your values?’ But for real, if and when we do get married, I want to make it really special for her.”

Being abstinent is more common and beneficial than most people think. And it’s not that our school doesn’t support abstinence, it’s just not that noticeable because it’s overshadowed by messages that assume we’re already sexually active.

Even when we get emotionally involved with someone, we assume that it should lead to sex. But we could all really benefit from developing deeper relationships and friendships that don’t need to involve sex. It would certainly reduce some of the drama and stress in our lives.

JHUNEHL FORTALEZA is still in Vancouver with her sick uncle she wrote about last week. Send her some love at jtfortaleza@ucdavis.edu. 

We know you’re probably tired of hearing people tell you what to do. But the people on the Quad campaigning aren’t just there because they have free time on their hands.

According to a study by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning & Engagement, the percent of young adults who are “extremely likely” to vote is 54.6 percent, but 100 percent of young adults will be affected by this election.

This is real life. This is a real election and it will have very real consequences. No matter what political party you align yourself with, it is vital that you go to the polling station to vote.

As a citizen of the United States, it is both your right and your duty to exercise your right to vote. Don’t pass up this opportunity.

Vote.

How about we all stop being so defensive and try to empathize with each other?

Chang, I get where you’re coming from with your defense of the English major. As an English major myself, I frequently experience condescension from others about the real-world practicality of my field of study. But guess what? So do most people.

“Oh, you’re a psychology major? That’s never going to pay off. Why don’t you study a real science?”

“You study math and science? You must have no creativity and/or people skills.”

At the same time, while Chang is reacting to these kinds of criticisms to his specific major, he is not necessarily belittling other majors. So Vrdoljak, when you write that your major “teach[es] those qualities [better writers, thinkers, and communicators] as well,” you are being just as defensive as Chang. Chang did assent in his first column that “thinking critically is also an important aspect of being a science major.” He was not really focused on attacking science majors, but rather, just on defending his choice of study by pointing out its benefits.

The problem with playing the victim and complaining excessively about the condescension and criticism we receive regarding our interests/values/majors is that we inevitably indicate a perpetrator of prejudice/narrow-mindedness/bigotry. Then, rather than building a shared understanding of how annoying and hurtful it can be to have your passions devalued, we get defensive and destroy the possibility of establishing common ground.

Both of you make valid points. And both of you make some pretty inane statements and conclusions. It is valid to say that English majors are “engaged nonstop in critical analysis and making connections.” It is also valid to say that “studying science helps [people] discover truths about the world.” However, it is silly to say that statistics “are misleading and easily rendered obsolete” without considering their value.

It is perhaps equally silly to say that the study of English is “limited to the transience of language and humanity.” It seems that the times when you are most ridiculous are the times when you are being most defensive. If you could focus on your majors’ values and strengths rather than the attacks you perceive being placed upon them or on making evaluative comparisons between majors, you would both be more convincing.

Let’s not make this personal. Vrdoljak, I think it’s pretty evident that Chang’s column was not about “how wonderful it is to major in English,” but rather about how frustrating it is to feel put upon to defend his field of study. And describing his writing style as “the master storytelling techniques taught exclusively to the master-race of English majors” is not only condescending but also dismissive of what is just journalistic technique.

However, I believe that Vrdoljak is correct in his criticism of Chang’s crude language. By referring to your “douchey” friend and your “second cock” afforded to you by your study, you suggest that you cannot articulate yourself without resorting to clichés and crass humor. Frankly, you’re making the rest of us look bad.

So what I’m suggesting is that we all engage in a little more professionalism and perspective-taking and a little less defensiveness and assumption-making. Instead of focusing on our hurt feelings or perceived attacks against our majors, focus on what we have in common.

And we all need to get used to criticism and condescension, because we will never have everyone agree with and approve of our life choices. Okay? Okay.

With a rained-out Halloween and a daughter in need of companionship while working on her high school history project, I applied myself to the examination of Proposition 30 and the reasons for it. They boil down to this: California needs to raise money now, and 30 is the most reasonable way to do it.

Over the last 25 years, money has concentrated to the top 5 percent income earners in California. The point is not to say it’s bad to make more money, but it’s also not bad to tax high-income earners a little more when they will still be way ahead. The rest of us in the 95 percent have lost purchasing power, wealth and income over the last 20 years and the top 5 percent have made gains in all three. So a temporary tax on top income is fair and even desired by many who include themselves in the top 5 percent.

In California, Proposition 13 provides the wealthy over 65 percent of the benefit of this famous property tax shelter. Income property and corporate property owners have left schools and towns $3 to 5 billion short every year for the last 20 years because their property assessments are stuck in 1978.

Proposition 13 cut school budgets in half and continues to squeeze, but problems exist on the spend side too.  Many state and local pension programs, as they exist, are unsupportable. Governor Brown, who sponsors Proposition 30, recently signed much sought-after pension reform. It’s a step in the right direction, but the most inflated pension and benefits of the police, firefighters, prison guards and school administrators will take more than one governor to cap reasonably.

There have been other cuts, but very little balance in terms of keeping some revenue for the state. Prior to Brown, Governor Schwarzenegger repealed the car tax, taking $4 billion a year away from California coffers and lowered business taxes by billion annually [sic]. To “balance the budget,” Schwarzenegger increased the state’s debt obligations by $42.8 billion. Debt payments on California’s obligations amounted to $5.5 billion in 2011.

The windfall of the wealthiest is well represented this Nov. 6. Twenty-eight million dollars of the Small Business Action Committee’s (SBAC’s) No on 30 funding came from Charles T. Munger, the brother of the sponsor of Proposition 38. Not to be outdone, Molly Munger has contributed over $44 million to promote her Proposition 38. Mr. Munger’s $28.9 million was joined by $11 million in out-of-state money from the Americans for Responsible Leadership (ARL) to support SBAC’s No on 30 campaign. The ARL is being sued over its refusal to disclose its source of funds.

Which brings us back to small businesses. According to the California Budget Project, over 75 percent of small business owners make less than $200,000 a year. Most small business state income tax won’t change with Proposition 30. So much for the claims made by the full-page, cardstock, four-color glossy SBAC flyers. I have received four in the mail so far.

Proposition 30 is not perfect, but it’s a better choice, and yet we older voters are split. College students and young professionals have been identified as the great tiebreakers for Proposition 30. In 2008, 53 percent of the voting population between 18 and 29 voted — usually it’s closer to 25 percent. Let’s hope they show up in higher numbers.

Our public college tuitions have pressed families to the brink. Our state has been ravaged by the lack of fair exchange between cuts and revenue generation, and by the public pension problem. Progress has been made to reduce future pension obligations. Now progress must be made to generate revenue.

We must end the starving of public education. If Proposition 30 does not pass, inequity increases, opportunity decreases and 100 percent of us will be the worse for it. It’s your call, younger voters.

Today, many of us will be heading to the polls to cast our ballot for President, Congress, Assembly and State Senate. But this election offers a unique opportunity for each and every student at UC Davis.

During the 2008 election, roughly 22 million young Americans headed to the polls to cast their vote and their impact was unprecedented. Four years later, you have an opportunity to make just as large of an impact.

On the ballot this week is Proposition 30, an initiative that will raise taxes on individuals earning more than $250,000 per year with the revenue heading to the University of California, California State University and California community college systems.

The effect of this proposition cannot be understated.

Without Prop. 30, UC will be facing a $250 million deficit. Translation: tuition hikes.

In July, the UC Board of Regents stated that if Prop. 30 fails, students could face a 20 percent tuition hike in January and more reductions to library services and class offerings.

We are facing a worst-case scenario: rising tuition hikes, cuts in classes, piling student-loan debt and a severe lack of jobs for college graduates.

That’s a worrisome picture for all of us, but this problem is not insurmountable.

If we want to ensure that California’s higher education system remains the best in the world, we have to reinvest in the classroom.

I hope you’ll take a break from studying and research the candidates and initiatives on the ballot.

If you’re registered to vote in Yolo County, head over to the Yolo County Elections Office website at yoloelections.org/voting/polling_place to find out where your precinct is located. Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Today, your vote is your voice. Be heard.