Remember the pregnant cow and her unborn calf who were gunned down at the 2010 State Fair? After being pursued by an SUV, she was ordered shot by a UC Davis veterinarian, who referred to the distraught animal as a “nutjob.”

Despite great public outcry, these abusive “birthing” exhibits continue. The baby calves are separated from their mothers at birth, never even allowed to nurse. Worse still are the pregnant sows imprisoned in those god-awful farrowing crates for three weeks, unable to move and forced to give birth on a metal grid, before gawking crowds and nightly fireworks. An Animal Auschwitz, as it were.

Most state fairs do not allow birthing exhibits (Texas, Oregon, Colorado, etc.), due to animal welfare concerns. Every veterinary study I’ve seen opposes the transport of animals about to give birth, noting the animals’ need for solitude, away from noisy crowds and bright lights.

Suggestion: Drop the cow and sow birthing exhibits, but keep those featuring sheep and goats. The latter, at least, are allowed to stay with their young in deep straw and seem far less stressed than the cows and sows. Instead, display cows and sows with their eight to ten week-old young. THIS is what the public wants to see, not the actual birthing process itself, which can be traumatic for all concerned.

Please express your concerns to the UC Davis veterinarians, the State Fair General Manager & CEO, Norbert Bartosik, and the CalEXPO Board of Directors: 1600 Exposition Blvd., Sacramento, CA  95815. E-mail: calexpoboard@calexpo.com.

Eric Mills
Coordinator, ACTION FOR ANIMALS

I tend to learn the rules so I know how to break them properly.

If the Dalai Lama, a pretty religious guy, subscribes to this belief, I don’t see why I, a mere mortal, can’t do so as well. For the next three weeks, I’ll be writing on the three topics your parents forbade you to discuss at the dinner table, the Bermuda triangle of taboos: religion, sex and politics.

Just this past weekend, three Tibetan monks practiced self-immolation by setting themselves on fire in opposition to Beijing’s rule in Tibet. The deaths, which bring the total number of suicides to 15 in the last year, suggest China continues to grapple with quelling Tibetans’ demands for religious license.

That Buddhist monks were so devoted to their cause — up to the point of paying the ultimate price — is as mystifying for us as eating cheese-flavored corn probably is to them.

Physically dying for one’s convictions is less a Western world ritual than it is an Eastern one. I personally don’t yet care enough about a topic, a movement or an event to purge myself of all feeling. Sure, I get upset and have strong opinions, but if it came down to it I wouldn’t die for that belief.

Others at UC Davis, however, may already be set enough in their convictions. When watching the now-infamous video footage of those who refused to budge during the protests, even while being pepper sprayed, I couldn’t help but ask, “How come they aren’t getting up yet?”

While these protests were less extreme versions of what is now occurring in Asia, occupiers believed in a cause enough to withstand abuse, similar to the Buddhist clergy members willing to down themselves in gasoline and spark a flame against religious regulation.

Religion hadn’t actually crossed my mind for a while until I was reminded of it in the wee hours of the morning at the airport over break. Besides being surprised to learn that Johnny Rockets Burgers now serves breakfast, I was perhaps equally startled to see a lonesome boy about my age (18, for all the bachelors interested) say grace before attempting to digest powdered eggs and imitation bacon.

I think I forgot for a moment that young adults don’t only bow their heads towards newfangled gadgets. From that moment on, the idea of faith seemed to dwell in my brain just as persistently as a split end on a fly hair.

God kept knocking on my door, practically disrupting the furniture of my inner house, when someone told me a quasi-Bible story about a boy who was whipped for stealing an apple. She ended, almost dramatically, with the question: “If the boy ought to be whipped for one apple, what do we deserve for our sins?”

I don’t think the answer is self-immolation, but it does lie in a sort of metaphysical sacrifice. We need to hold fast to our beliefs, knowing there may be difficult consequences or unfortunate endings.

The major problems the world faces today often appear too intimidating to be addressed. An overarching feeling of resignation abounds, and most are consumed by the personal desire to simply do well in their pursuits. However, we are becoming an ever more disengaged and detached generation.

My column, unofficially titled “Peripheral Vision,” will begin to reconstruct the dialogues that appeal to our incubating passions. Global matters seem to have little significance in how we college students presently conduct our lives, but it is the habit of taking a critical look at how decisions are made that is the antidote to the disaffected attitude our generation is tending towards.

If we cannot take interest in news as accessible as The Aggie, the task to look beyond ourselves will only get harder.

Lose yourself in CHELSEA MEHRA’s Bermuda triangle by contacting her at cmehra@ucdavis.edu.

UC Davis’ campus diversity centers provide vital services that enrich the lives of students and faculty at our school. While some might argue that we should cut programs like the Women’s Resource and Research Center (WRRC), Cross-Cultural Center (CCC) or the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center (LGBTRC), I believe funding for them should be expanded.

In a recent column, Sam Hoel argued that diversity programs are “administrators’ weapons of choice,” a way of obtaining a greater portion of the budget. As evidence, he cited the salary of the Vice Dean in charge of the Office of Campus Community Relations (OCCR).

It’s true that too much money is spent on administration at UC Davis. However, it requires a verbal sleight of hand to conflate the administrators overseeing the OCCR with the programs it coordinates. The School of Medicine is served by a dean who made $803,247.68 in 2010. Should we cut that program, too?

These programs aren’t the product of a management “fad” or a scheme to funnel money to administrators. Instead, they represent a long history of gains won by the grassroots struggles of students. The CCC, for example, was founded in 1992 only after four students held a hunger strike demanding it.

Far from superfluous bureaucracies, these programs directly provide guidance and resources for students, faculty and staff while giving them a space to organize and empower themselves.

For example, the WRRC offers a confidential community counselor. With the center, women-identified students have a safe and supportive space where they can talk about personal and professional issues. The center also organizes peer education, workshops and scholarships, while maintaining an extensive library.

These services cannot be carried out by students and faculty on their own time. An informal student group that meets every week would be unable to provide the same level of consistent, campus-wide support. Effective cultural diversity programs require university funding, including paid staff and office space.

And the campus desperately needs them. Between 2008 and 2010, campus police reported 66 forcible sex offenses. Programs like the WRRC provide support for victims of sexual assault, education to raise awareness about the issue and advocacy when student needs are overlooked or ignored. If we cut those programs, students lose community, comfort and a powerful voice on campus.

The same could be said about the LGBTRC, whose queer mentorship program and social events allow students who are coming out or just new to UC Davis a chance to participate in a safe and welcoming campus community. If you drop by the center, you’ll also find Safe Zone training, queer leadership events and free, confidential HIV antibody testing.

Anyone who thinks the LGBT community in UC Davis can do without the center has a short memory. Less than two years ago, a vandal spray painted the center with homophobic slurs.

Meanwhile, more recent events such as the yellow ribbon noose incident and the Ku Klux Klan hood posted on the African American themed floor of Campbell Hall show that, yes, we still need programs like the Cross-Cultural Center.

But it’s true that we don’t need spectacular instances of hatred to realize that heterosexism, homophobia, sexism and racism are alive and well on our campus. From subtle forms of discrimination to the absence of unisex bathrooms in most campus buildings, we can see our campus has a long way to go.

Indeed, the fact that these issues are invisible to some on campus is part of the problem. While the majority of students condemn blatant forms of bigotry, most remain unaware of their own privilege.

For example, as a white, heterosexual male and a native speaker of English, I can be sure that my cultural heritage will be well represented in my department. Moreover, unlike female instructors, I don’t have to worry much about my classroom apparel and, unlike gay instructors, I do not have to think very hard about revealing my sexual orientation.

In fact, my privilege has allowed me to remain heretofore unaware of many of the services these centers provide on campus. (Nobody has ever needed to formally mentor a male heterosexual to put him in touch with other heterosexuals.)

But this is not the fault of UC Davis diversity programs, which expend a great deal of time and energy on outreach. Rather, the fault lies with the indifference of privileged members of the campus body. Clearly, we should provide greater material support and solidarity for cultural diversity on our campus.

JORDAN S. CARROLL is a PhD student in English at UC Davis and can be reached at jscarroll@ucdavis.edu.

The events of Nov. 18 are still fresh on the minds of the UC Davis community. Similarly, what the protesters are standing for, lower tuition and more state funding toward higher education, is still a hot-button issue in California. Therefore, it’s time we take productive steps toward ensuring our goals for more state funding toward higher education.

Luckily, California is one of the easiest states to get laws passed without going through Sacramento. By means of direct democracy, any organization or group of people can get any proposition or initiative on the general election ballot without the approval of the state legislature or governor. If the ballot initiative is passed, it acts like a law just as if it came from Sacramento.

In order to get anything on the ballot, organizers need to get 480,000 signatures of registered voters. The deadline is 131 days prior to the statewide election. This can seem like a daunting number, but it’s by no means unreachable. Given the right amount of time and resources, we can get something on the ballot relating to state funding of higher education.

According to the UC Office of the President, there are 234,464 students, 18,896 faculty, 189,116 staff members and over 1,600,000 living alumni, which totals over 2 million people to possibly support the petition.

This is a real, practical way to make substantial change to the state of California and how it views higher education. Because getting something on the ballot only involves signatures, it eliminates the gridlock that could ensue if the measure were to go through Sacramento.

Some possible ballot initiatives could include capping tuition, reforming the UC Regent selection process or mandating more state funding toward state education. These are measures that could have strong support among California voters.

Along the same lines, it is budget season in California, meaning it’s almost time for our representatives to vote on Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed 2012-13 budget. In his proposal, Brown would cut $444 million dollars of state funding toward higher education. This, compounded with the trigger cuts put in place last December, means less and less money for the UC system.

We can write, call, Facebook, tweet or visit our local representatives in Sacramento and continue to remind them that cutting from higher education is unacceptable.

There are a few, effective ways for non-politicians to enact change in California. It’s time we take advantage of them and keep pushing for our cause. And don’t forget, Sacramento is just a short trip away. The longer we wait to take action, the more our movement will lose attention.