Ever since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, pundits, politicians and preachers throughout the United States have argued that the world is entrenched in a clash of civilizations – but very few have addressed the reasons why this conflict continues to grow at home.

On Oct. 27, UC Davis’ Middle East/South Asia Studies Program (MESA) played host to Dr. Reza Aslan, who diagnosed the causes and consequences of anti-Muslim sentiments through a lecture entitled ‘Is America Islamophobic?’

“I think it’s important to identify the reasons why anti-Muslim sentiments in this country are at all time highs,” Aslan said. “There are more people in 2010 that have a negative view toward Islam than they did in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11. This anti-Muslim rhetoric is becoming increasingly mainstream.”

Early in the lecture, Aslan announced an alarming statistic: 49 percent of polled Americans have a negative view of Islam. He continued to cite examples and draw on recent political controversies to convey the nation’s Islamophobic symptoms.

This prejudice, Aslan explained, is a cyclical tendency that this country repeatedly emits with each new wave of immigration. It began with the Catholics, then the Jews and the Japanese, and it has continued until today.

In a matter of minutes, Aslan had completely changed the atmosphere of the room. The audience, which from the beginning had been shrouded in a mist of tension, was suddenly charged with a sense of unity.

“Although very disturbing, it felt good to hear that we aren’t the only community that has gone through this,” said Babak Zamani, a sophomore political science major at Sacramento State.

This notion of equality was quickly followed by the promise of hope. Aslan pointed out that all of these minorities eventually outgrew their status as a marginalized community, but they did so through organization and action.

“It does take education and awareness,” Aslan said. “But more importantly, it takes developing and maintaining intimate relationships with those around us. Every single one of us is a representative of Islam, and we must show the country that we are not the faceless, fanatic Other that we have been labeled as.”

After a brief question and answer session, an enthusiastic and optimistic audience lined up for the book signing and a chance to meet Aslan.

“I truly enjoyed and appreciated the enthusiasm and encouragement Aslan carried throughout his lecture,” said Fatima Salman, a junior political science and history double major. “Today’s society calls for more leaders like Dr. Aslan to speak on behalf of justice and truth.”

The MESA department was also pleased with the event’s turn out.

“I think the student body was very receptive to what Aslan had to say,” said Shobhik Ghosh, MESA student assistant. “Whether or not students agree or disagree with him, I think he definitely gave them something to think about.”

Ultimately, Aslan’s message is one that prompts action.

“This bigotry and prejudice that has been shown against us must be fought,” Aslan said. “We can do this through education and by being representatives of our community and religion.”

EHSUN FORGHANY can be reached at campus@theaggie.org.

In stark contrast to the increasingly negative tone of the fast approaching election, the Davis College Republicans (DCR) and Davis College Democrats (DCD) held a debate on Wednesday to discuss the pros and cons of their candidates for governor and Proposition 23.

They began by debating Proposition 23, which calls on temporarily suspending the Global Warming Act passed in 2006, known as AB 32.

“Nobody here wants to forsake our environment, we always want to embrace newer technologies that will give us cleaner air and give us better, more futuristic needs of technology,” said Mark Bahl, a senior history major representing the DCR side. “It’s important to understand what, if Prop 23 doesn’t pass, would be the immediate economic impacts.”

Bahl noted that since 2006, changes in the economic climate would make implementing AB 32 a difficult burden on businesses and taxpayers. The unemployment rate was 4.8 percent then and 12.3 percent now.

“From 2007 to 2008, when state employment fell by 1 percent, green jobs continue to grow by 5 percent. This is something that is helping our economy in a downturn – this is the one sector that is increasing in jobs,” said Kelsey McQuaid, a junior political science major representing the DCD side, in response to the DCR argument.

McQuaid noted from a report by the California Employment Development Department that there are 500,000 green energy jobs in California. It didn’t say if it was directly as a result of AB 32, however.

They then shifted focus to the governor’s race.

“How will Meg Whitman’s experience translate into any governmental success when we have seen a state … that has been directed by yet another Republican candidate with no actual governmental experience? How is Meg any different than the Republican leadership that has controlled the governor’s seat for, I believe, 24 of the last 30 years since Jerry Brown has been governor?” said Sam Mahood, a junior political science major representing the DCD side.

“First of all, you’ve got to get past the party labels for a second. Yeah, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Meg Whitman are both Republicans, but you’ve got to look at what Arnold actually did,” said Evan Charmley, a senior political science and history major representing the DCR side. “He signed into law tax increases, AB 32 … So it’s a bit fallacious to assume that because Arnold is Republican, he’s automatically going to put in similar laws to the effect Meg Whitman wants to do.”

Each side touted their candidate’s pledge to get California back on track and their pledges to create more jobs.

While there were no clear winners, the hosts were glad that there was a forum for balanced and honest debate.

“I thought the issues were presented in greater detail than they are in public media, which is what we were aiming for,” said Rajiv Narayan, a junior individual major in critical economics and the executive director of the Roosevelt Institute at UC Davis. “So you’re not seeing conversations here over melancholy music or dramatic effects. You’re listening to students talk about numbers, issues, evidence, policy stuff that matters when you’re at the polls.”

The debate was organized by the Roosevelt Institute, a student-run think tank, and attracted around 30 people – the majority members of either DCR or DCD.

Election day is Tuesday, with the polls opening at 7 a.m. and closing at 8 p.m.

CECILIO PADILLA can be reached at campus@theaggie.org.

The competition between UC Davis and Sacramento State goes beyond just the football field. On Tuesday, Blood Source will host the third annual Causeway Classic blood drive.

The winner of the Causeway Classic is determined by which campus donates the most pints of blood. UC Davis is so far undefeated, but this year Sac State donated over 1,300 pints of blood – comparable to UC Davis’s amount last year of 1,445 pints of blood.

“The Causeway Classic started as a way to increase awareness and participation in blood drives among campuses,” said Blood Source Account Manager Bree Leon. “We knew the Causeway Classic football game had always been a big rivalry, so we wanted to give students another way to show their school spirit.”

Within the competition between UC Davis and Sac State, there is another competition between campus organizations, including sororities, fraternities, clubs and sports teams. The organization with the highest donations in their name will receive a first place prize of $300, while second and third place prizes are $200 and $100, respectively.

However there is controversy over whether the blood drive should be an ASUCD sponsored event because of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy that states men who have sex with men are not allowed to donate.

“ASUCD supports the blood drive, but opposes the policy,” ASUCD Senator Andre Lee said. “The idea that I oppose the most is that [ASUCD] has to choose between supporting something that is life giving and something that is an LGBT issue that I also support.”

Sabrina Dias, sophomore biology major and speaker of the Outreach Assembly, said the Gender and Sexuality Commission would be tabling to educate those who are not familiar with the FDA policy.

“In order to combat any type of policy, the specific issue needs to be brought to light,” she said. “There will also be a petition circulating for those who wish to support the efforts in working against this FDA policy.”

In addition, for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) groups on campus that want to participate in the blood drive and compete for the prize money, they can volunteer. One hour of volunteering will count as donating one pint of blood.

Emmanuel Diaz-Ordaz, junior animal science major and member of the Gender and Sexuality Commission, said that ASUCD should spread more awareness and ask others in the LGBT community to table.

“They came to the Gender and Sexuality Commission and expected us to table at the blood drive, and to my knowledge they did not ask anyone else,” he said.

Despite the controversy, the Causeway Classic continues to be an ASUCD sponsored event and the blood donated mainly goes to Davis and Sacramento communities.

Students and staff can come and donate on Nov. 2 and 3 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. in Freeborn Hall. The winner will be announced at the Causeway Classic football game.

“One pint of Blood can save three lives and only lasts 42 days,” Leon said. “So, having these blood drives and having students come out and support is critical to save patients in the hospital.”

JASPREET BAHIA can be reached at campus@theaggie.org.

The “Big Oil Goes to College” report, recently published by the Center for American Progress, criticizes 10 campuses nationwide for their research contracts with major oil companies – UC Davis included.

Under the agreement, Chevron pays UC Davis $25 million over the course of five years starting in 2006 to conduct biofuel research. Dr. David McGee, executive director of InnovationAccess, said he believes that this agreement is beneficial for UC Davis and for the public.

“UC Davis depends on industry to provide capital that is necessary to develop our discoveries,” McGee said. “We believe this is the type of collaboration that the public should want industry to do, and should want the university to do.”

The agreement provides for research funding that the university may not have otherwise, and Chevron provides the ability to complete research proposals for public benefit, McGee said.

The report claims that the UC Davis-Chevron agreement contains numerous provisions that solely benefit Chevron and that it is too vague, allowing for Chevron to exploit the alliance largely in its favor. Thus, it also states that the ethics and quality of academic research are weakened by industry influence.

“This vagueness and/or silence concerning the alliance’s academic management, oversight and research selection process leaves the balance of power (between UC Davis and Chevron) highly uncertain,” states the report. “The agreement also tends to give Chevron a strong de facto advantage in controlling the terms of the alliance.”

However, UC Davis staff members insist that the author of the report, Jennifer Washburn, has misinterpreted the agreement as well as failed to acknowledge the typical framework of a business contract between a public university and a corporation.

“Lots of the issues that [the authors] have concentrated on might make sense if you are talking about money from the federal government or the state government, which is basically tax payers’ money,” said Dr. Ahmad Hakim-Elahi, executive director of Sponsored Programs. “When we work with a private sector entity, what we basically do is put a proposal and budget together and it goes to the company, and the company decides if they want to fund us or not.”

More specifically, the report claims that, due to the vagueness of outlining the governing structure and decision-making process that determines the focus of research, Chevron has the upper hand in formulating the research projects.

In actuality, UC Davis professors have the major responsibility of creating research proposals, McGee said. The professors first write a research proposal, and then a review committee comprised of UC Davis and Chevron representatives review it. If the proposal meets their criteria, it’s sent to Chevron for final approval.

If anything, the governing structure consisting of a joint committee is favorable for UC Davis, Hakim-Elahi said.

“A university is not a part of that committee at all in a typical relationship with an industry,” Hakim-Elahi said. “In this relationship we have a say in the direction of even their decisions, we discuss things together.”

Additionally, the report criticizes the absence of an independent peer review system of research proposals.

While a peer review system could be implemented if the funding came from the federal government, it is not applicable in a relationship between a university and a company, Hakim-Elahi said. When working with a private sector, there is no peer review.

“They are the ones who decide how they want to spend their money,” Hakim-Elahi said. “They are not forcing us to take it, they are not forcing the direction of research. We come up with the research and ask them if they want to fund it or not.”

The report also incorrectly states that UC Davis cannot spend any of its earned royalties however it pleases, McGee said.

“The contract very clearly states the royalties the university receives is controlled by the university,” he said. “One-half of the royalties is designated in the agreement to be used for future energy-related research at the university, but the university has final authority for what that research would be. The other half is not encumbered in any way.”

Furthermore, the report claims that a 150-day publication delay and five year confidentiality restriction are unreasonably long and unfavorable towards UC Davis’ publication rights, but the explanations of these components are misleading, McGee and Hakim-Elah said.

“The university is not prohibited from publishing data,” McGee said.

He said that the publication delays are an appropriate amount of time needed to decide whether or not to file and prepare a patent application.

“The confidentiality component only applies to information that is confidential to the company (Chevron), the data that is generated out of the research is not part of that.”

Alexandra Krier, a sophomore animal science major, views the alliance positively.

“Research for alternative fuel methods is going to be beneficial,” Krier said. “So why does it matter if it’s the oil companies funding it?”

The full version of the report can be found at americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/pdf/big_oil_lf.pdf, and the actual agreement at bioenergy.ucdavis.edu/chevron.php.

MARTHA GEORGIS can be reached at campus@theaggie.org.

If you prefer your porn viewing experience in a more public setting, you may be out of luck. The Entertainment Council has declined to screen a showing of the acclaimed pornographic film, “Virtual Reality Stimulator” by Ultra-Magnum Creations.

This would have been the second public screening of pornographic material in three years on campus. “Virtual Reality Stimulator” is 3D – three full dimensions of hardcore, guy-on-girl pornographic material.

“A big part in our decision to screen it or not, is the fact that it is the first 3D porno,” said Veronica Lee Rice, senior film studies major and cinema co-coordinator for the Entertainment Council. “The 3D concept is so big that it is seeping into the porn industry.”

Rice later explained that this particular film does not need to be screened, as there are other non-pornographic 3D films that the Entertainment Council feels will reach a wider audience.

“We don’t want to make anyone feel uncomfortable on their own campus,” Rice said.

There were mixed reactions to the pornographic screening two years ago. While Rice insisted these “alternative-type” viewings aren’t just for first-year males, others who attended last time are happy this one is not being shown, especially in 3D.

“If they had it here I know none of my friends would go after our experience at the first one,” said Shamita Jayakumar, a junior economics and sociology double major. “Most of my friends thought it was way too graphic; do we really need porn in 3D?”

The Entertainment Council had planned on making the event an educational one, coordinating with the Gender and Sexuality Commission (GASC) to give a talk beforehand. Rice even toyed with the idea of inviting a film group, Filmmakers’ Ambition, to speak about the emergence of the 3D format in new movies.

“We would just want to make sure that if there are any problematic elements [within the film] that they be talked about,” said Caitlin Alday, GASC chair. “We want to also start a dialogue with other groups on campus about issues that come up within films, such as rape, class, gender and ability.”

GASC gave a talk two years ago before the last pornographic screening. In the film there was a rape fantasy scene and GASC discussed the importance of consent in real life situations. They had planned do something similar this year based on what issues were brought up within the film.

But it looks like GASC or any other group will not need to make any announcement, as Entertainment Council decided against showing “Virtual Reality Stimulator.”

Some students, however, are upset that the Entertainment Council pulled the plug on this project.

“The pirates porno was probably one of the most popular events the Entertainment Council put on that year,” said Karly Gelardi, a junior international relations major.

Gelardi had tried to go to the screening of “Pirates II: Stagnetti’s Revenge” but couldn’t due to a packed auditorium.

“If pornos are what the students want, pornos are what they should get,” she said. “Isn’t that the point of the Entertainment Council, to entertain students as they want to be entertained? Plus, it’s 3D.”

Rice maintained that the Entertainment Council is for the entire student body, but Jayakumar has her own theories as to why the film will no longer be shown.

“They probably don’t know how to properly clean all the 3D glasses after,” she said. “Would you consider those reusable?”

ANDY VEDEROSA can be reached at campus@theaggie.org.