Okay, so I’m not actually calling upon people to leave civility, manners and respect of others on the wayside. These traits should all be observed in relations with other people we interact with on a daily basis. Mutual respect and tolerance for others and their ideas is a foundation of our civil society.

What I want to address is the call for civility in politics by many nationally recognized pundits and leaders. A lot has been said recently about the “You lie!” outburst from Republican representative Joe Wilson during President Obama’s big health care speech in front of congress. The same can be said of the House floor hearing where Democrat Alan Grayson essentially exclaimed that if you get sick, the Republican Party will, “Want you to die quickly.”

These shocking outbursts, whether they were planned or not, have brought on the debate that politics in America has taken a sharp and sinister turn toward incivility, hyper-partisanship and outright hostility. Some prominent politicians, like House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, have even stated that they’re afraid the country is headed toward an increase in violence because of the passion and animosity coming from politicians, political commentators and citizens.

The argument that America must “return” to civility is way off base. While it’s true that American politics have become more partisan in recent years with the Republican and Democratic parties becoming more polarized, it must be acknowledged that we live in trying and contentious times.

The sudden change in the political landscape has stoked the fires of many fundamental and contentious issues that impact this nation. This intensity of debate and lack of civility is not inherent to this particular moment in U.S. history. Americans are greatly divided on the issue of health care. The passion of opponents and proponents of health care reform is very high.

The legitimate arguments for and against the current proposal are both numerous and reasonable, but each citizen’s final judgment on the issue will most likely come down to personal ideology. Reasonable people will most likely denounce rampant ad hominem attacks coming from both sides of the debate. We must, however, also accept that the passions and beliefs of American citizens and leadership will sometimes boil over. People will make rude and inflammatory comments about what – and with whom – they disagree with.

There’s a time and place for careful and dedicated study of the issues that impact our lives and the country as a whole. Intense passionate debate also has a place, though. Americans are generally upfront people who very often voice their opinions in a very loud and open way. This should not be looked upon as a negative aspect of our national character. This combination of passion and honesty will sometimes interfere with our ability to view issues in an objective way, but will not hurt the national dialog.

Americans still respect the legitimacy of the system we live under. We will accept the decisions made by our elected leaders without resorting to violence. It is our passion and desire to make our lives and our descendants’ lives better. That passion is necessary in the continual progress of our society. Telling political opponents that they must be civil appears to be saying, “Be quiet and stop arguing with me!”

In the end, American voters must decide if their representative is out of line. If that representative crosses that line, then they will be voted out of office. There is no “civility clause” in the United States Constitution. You have every right to make a fool of yourself.

JARRETT STEPMAN is likely to be seen on campus with his head buried in a long, boring non-fiction book that only he would enjoy. Oh, and also holding a large cup of coffee. Your civil or uncivil comments may be directed to him at jstepman@sbcglobal.net.

Someone messed up.

Someone somewhere made a mistake. The Aggie couldn’t have wanted this Sara back. Kohgadai? It must be another one. Maybe they have mistaken her for a Sarah.

Let me start by saying: It’s not Sara, it’s Sara.

Last year, this column was named “That’s what She said,” because this is what She says. And it’s nothing like what you think She’s been saying this whole time. I don’t care if that’s the biggest burrito you’ve ever seen, or that after a rainy day you’re really wet. This She doesn’t care.

I wrote for the Aggie last year and I learned a lot. I might have learned too much. Well, you can never learn too much, but like Tupac said, “My son’s getting older and older and cold from having the world on his shoulders.” Still, I try my best to write about something with substance. Something to make you go, “What the fuck?” Stir up the status quo and shit.

I also learned last year that we could curse in our columns.

Writing your opinion and having it published for everyone to see is a bit nerve wracking. My sophomore year, when I realized I wanted to write for the newspaper, I sat down and started to write a “pretend first column,” preparing for the day I might get the position. I didn’t end up using it for my actual first column. I’ll use it here to keep me grounded and show you exactly how nerve wracking it is. Here is a blast from the past:

“This column could be psychologically problematic for me. Being someone who constantly wants other people to be happy, I could potentially have a nervous breakdown any day seeing Aggies scattered all over the place. Wondering what people think when they read it – if they even read it. I know every littered Aggie will be a personalized blow to my heart. The paranoia and stress could easily kill me. Sweaty palms and shaky hands will keep me single much longer than what’s considered cool. My indecisiveness about what ‘interesting’ topic to write about will render me a poser.”

Okay, so the emotions are a bit dramatized, but you know what I really mean. We columnists are bearing our souls to you, UC Davis. We write to make you happy, sad, upset and confused. We write to make you laugh, to inspire you and just entertain you. This column might do some of these things; it might do none of these things.

But I’m writing for the underdog. Consider me Robin Hood: I’m taking the knowledge, information and secrets that the top is hoarding away and distributing it to the bottom. With knowledge comes power. What you’ll learn throughout this column, hopefully, is that there are a lot of things that happen right under our noses that you might not approve of. If more people had any idea about these things, they’d want to change them. And once enough people want something to change – well, it’ll happen. Ipso facto.

I guess the only perk of this column – as opposed to other articles that talk about the same boring world issues most college students don’t care for – is that I talk in layman’s terms. I’m not trying to impress anyone with my knowledge of anything. I’m just learning something new each week and sharing it with those who care.

SARA KOHGADAI is excited for a new year. E-mail her at sbkohgadai@ucdavis.edu. While you’re here, check out the cartoons for today. I hear they’re good on Tuesdays.

There’s a difference between telling the truth and truth-telling. I know the difference. People who accuse me of lying don’t know the difference. It’s the difference between “telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God,” and telling only part of the truth that serves you.

I’ve known this simple difference my entire life. It has served me very well – especially the time I peed on my toy rack in the closet back in the 2nd grade. I’ll discuss how it got me out of hot water (no pun intended) later, if you’re curious.

Peeing on things was a source of great amusement for me as a child. At the time I had no name for them, but now I call them “pee and runs,” because I would never “pee and tell.” Why? Because it’s the cardinal rule of pee etiquette: once the deed is done, the pee is no longer yours. If fire hydrants and dogs are popping up in your head, I urge you to purge them. This has nothing to do with marking my territory and everything to do with my endeavor to maximize my utility. If, in the process, my values are lost, then there is nothing I can do. And by that I mean there is nothing I want to do. I’m sorry. This is how it is.

It’s no wonder I majored in the philosophy of ethics when I came to UC Davis. The common joke about philosophy majors is they live in cardboard boxes after graduation. There’s some truth to that, sadly, but above all, philosophy allows us to discuss pressing ethical issues within a fair and academic context. What if everyone lied all the time? What if everyone told the truth all time?

The possible implications of these questions floated around in my head as a child, and when I entered college, I wanted to get to the bottom of them. That’s what philosophers do: They debate issues that seem meaningless to the general public. Please bear with me for a moment while I illustrate this point. What if a lie could benefit you more than it hurts you? And what if that lie is so beneficial that you must tell it?

Imagine it’s World War II. You’re hiding your beloved Jewish neighbors in the attic. The Gestapo comes to your door. They demand to know if you’ve hidden any Jews. Do you tell the truth? Of course not. Intuition tells us telling the truth here would be absolutely ridiculous. So then why do we worry so much about the “sin” of lying? Can there be a benefit to “truth-telling?” Only specifying a part of the truth that can, ultimately, benefit everyone involved? A response such as “there are no Jews here” is not a lie, per se. There are no Jews here in my immediate presence…but if I take you upstairs into my attic, there we will find Jews. That’s the difference.

This logic saved me from getting a few good lashings (or slipper attacks) courtesy of my immigrant parental units. I simply told my mummy that no such thing ever happened. I didn’t “pee on my toy rack” – I tried to pee in the corner of the closet, and unfortunately, I had a little unforeseen spillage. Of course, I omitted the last part, but that’s the point. Besides, the toy rack seemed to enjoy all the warm, yellow glory. I don’t know why I just personified my toy rack, but you have to realize I was really attached to that toy rack. It was a repository for all my toys, and it had little nubs in the four corners that allowed me to add extra blue racks. It was amazing, even in spite of the fact that my Batman action figure perpetually smelled like week-old urine.

DAVE KARIMI is sure you’ve peed on inanimate objects, too. Share your list at dkarimi@ucdavis.edu.

Editor’s note: On Aug. 5, the D-Q University Board of Trustees ordered the sweat lodge at D-Q to be closed and sent police to interrupt the Inipi ceremony that was already in progress. Those gathered for prayer were ordered off the premises and forced to leave the Inipi fire burning.

A letter addressed to the D-Q Board of Trustees has recently been circulated throughout the community. The letter was written by Pat Wright in support of her husband, Bill Wright (Wintun/Patwin) and his perceived role as an “Indian doctor” at D-Q University.

Mrs. Wright states that she and her husband have invested a great deal of “time and energy” at D-Q over the past 25 years. She goes on to infer that since the school is situated on land within the historic territory of the Wintun/Patwin tribes, that Mr. Wright should have religious oversight at the institution – an authority Mrs. Wright refers to in the letter as the “hierarchy of territory.”

While I respect Mr. Wright and support his dedication to the spiritual needs of members of the California Indian community, I must take issue with Mrs. Wright’s assessment of any so-called religious “hierarchy” at D-Q University.

Mrs. Wright does not seem to understand D-Q’s complicated history, or the initial guidelines and objectives set in place during the institution’s founding. D-Q was not established solely as an institution for California Indians, but for Indians of all nations. This is an important fact that can easily be found in the school’s charter. I know this to be true because I have been working at D-Q since 1974 – some 10 years before Mr. Wright ever appeared on the scene.

D-Q University was founded in 1971 to provide a more appropriate, culturally-sensitive method of education for Native American students. It was one of the first six American Indian colleges in the United States. Among its educational objectives, the preservation of traditional Native religious values and practices was a major priority.

The story of Native Americans in California began with the indigenous people who lived here in harmony for thousands of years before Europeans and Americans disrupted the balanced system within which these people lived. But the story did not end there. In the 20th century, it came to include members of other tribes sent into the region as well. Being compelled to share territory is not a phenomenon exclusive to California Indians – it is just one part of the removal and relocation of Native people from ancestral homelands that has taken place on a nationwide basis.

D-Q University was founded during the Era of Termination and Relocation in the wake of the BIA’s Urban Indian Relocation Program. Under the auspices of this program, over 100,000 American Indians were relocated from their homes on rural reservations and in tribal communities to urban areas across the United States. A few cities within the state of California, specifically Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose, were designated as new home sites for thousands of these displaced, intertribal Native people.

It was these Indians, from tribally-diverse backgrounds, who sought out a special place where they would be able to establish a more valuable form of culturally-based education – one that included Native history, language, culture and spirituality in order to help prepare Indian students for the multi-cultural world, while at the same time, supporting their distinctive tribal identities. As such, D-Q became part of the first American Indian Higher Education Consortium in 1972.

These new urban Indians utilized the same strategy to obtain the site upon which D-Q stands as they did in their quest to bring attention to the treaty violations of the federal government during the occupation of Alcatraz Island. They used the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie between the U.S. and the Sioux Nation, which mandates that any federal property initially taken from Indian people must be returned to them if the government ceases to use it or abandons the property. D-Q is the decommissioned site of the U.S. Army West Coast Relay and Radio Transmitting Station. Native American access to the site was initially denied, but our people conducted a series of protests before access was finally granted in 1970. The school opened in 1971, obtaining accreditation in 1977.

Mr. and Mrs. Wright state that, in their opinion, sweats should be “conducted by a competent leader, because what happens in the sweat lodge reflects back on all aspects of D-Q.” I was raised traditionally and have conducted Inipi ceremonies since I was a very young man. It is a responsibility that I take very seriously. I guard the proceedings at the sweat lodge very carefully, protecting the rite from any inappropriate influences.

For that reason, under the administration of Dave Risling, I was asked to fill the position of cultural advisor at D-Q. In fulfillment of that request, I presided over sweat lodge activities at the school for over three decades. I was also employed as a traditional councilor by Oakland IHS, and ran sweats there for many years.

While it is true that Inipi has been adopted as a method of prayer for a number of intertribal purposes, I am deeply offended by Mr. and Mrs. Wright’s description of it as a “generic ceremony.” There is nothing generic in the spiritual and physical healing that occurs as a result of participation in an Inipi. For many American Indians in California, the Inipi also represents cultural persistence and empowerment – a chance to practice their religious traditions away from home. Many of these people need the continued stability and spiritual outlet the sweat lodge provides. Now, that option – the most successful operation D-Q has ever known – has been taken from the people. Taking this from them is tantamount to denying them religious freedom.

Finally, I want to point to Mr. and Mrs. Wright’s statement that, as a part of the larger community of California Indians, they “hold the dream of one day seeing a university that celebrates the tribes of California,” and that, “D-Q could become a model for the preservation of California tribal languages and cultures.”

While I agree that this is a beautiful and worthwhile dream, I must reiterate the fact that D-Q University was not created for the purpose of serving California Indians alone. It was not only California Indians who worked to establish the institution in the first place, or who struggled to support and maintain the school over the past 30 years. D-Q has always been a place for Indians of all tribes, and must continue to be so. Any attempt to initiate any sort of tribal hierarchy, or to specify one tribal tradition over another, defeats the institution’s entire founding purposes. In my opinion, doing so will bring about the final downfall of D-Q University.