The announcement of a possible US Bank branch in the Memorial Union was bad enough. The latest news is even worse.

UC Davis could allow US Bank to put its logo on the back of all UC Davis identification cards as part of the ongoing negotiations to allow a US Bank branch in the MU.

US Bank would pay $190,000 a year for the privilege of both having a centrally located bank branch on campus as well as getting free advertising on every single ID card issued by UC Davis. The proposed contract, which is still being negotiated, would also include a $300,000 signing bonus.

University administrators deserve credit for doing everything they can to find new money in a dire budget year. We have already seen the Gender Education program reach the brink of extinction, and many student employees face layoffs because departments are running out of money.

But this is just inappropriate.

ID cards are university-issued, officially sanctioned forms of identification. Putting a corporate logo on them is crossing a fine line between benign acceptance of a gift and brazen endorsement of a specific brand.

Corporate sponsorship is not always bad. Chevron Corp. has contributed millions of dollars to sponsor the UC Davis Energy Efficiency Center. Anheuser-Busch has contributed millions to the forthcoming Anheuser-Busch Brewing and Food Science Laboratory.

The key difference between the US Bank plan and already existing forms of corporate sponsorship is education. The Chevron and Anheuser-Busch sponsorships directly benefit the university’s educational mission. A logo on the back of ID cards does nothing but provide cheap but extremely valuable advertising to US Bank.

UC Davis should not be willing to compromise its values for a few bucks, and that is exactly what would happen if this deal goes through.

This quarter’s ASUCD elections produced their usual crop of quality senate and executive candidates. Unfortunately, they also produced unruly and disruptive crowds at the two debates in the ASUCD Coffee House. Slate supporters, most notably LEAD supporters, are excessively loud and raucous at such functions on a consistent basis. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. The debates hosted in the Coho are organized by the ASUCD Elections Committee to be an open, intellectual exchange and discussion of ideas. They are intended to give students at large a chance to hear and consider the various platform goals of the senate and executive candidates. By screaming and cheering whenever their candidates are about to begin speaking or when they finish, slate supporters create a variety of problems. Hooting, hollering and stamping one‘s feet tend to detract from such an atmosphere. It also creates an unfairly hostile atmosphere for any independent candidates or candidates of opposing slates.

Those who wish to attend the debates would do well to remember that debates are discussions of ideas in which pros and cons are advanced by the participants. A rally is a large gathering of people attempting to drum up enthusiasm for something. To be clear, it is important to raise excitement about debates; more students should attend. Doing it at the debate, however, is inappropriate. In addition, such behavior inhibits the ability of the audience, the moderators and the other members of the debate from hearing what the current candidate is saying. This interrupts the flow of responses and questions. It also needlessly lengthens the debate as moderators have to repeat their questions and candidates have to repeat their responses.

Such actions are especially curious because, presumably, the slate supporters want to have undecided voters vote for their candidates. How are their candidates supposed to sway the minds of students if their words are completely inaudible? Such behavior flies in the face of outreach attempts. Why should students be motivated to join an organization where they’ll be shouted at if they disagree?

Audience reaction is inevitable and expected. Positive reaction could be reasonably restrained to quiet applause. Negative reactions are rude and unnecessary and reflect poorly on the audience as a whole. This is not meant to suggest that LEAD supporters are the sole practitioners of this shoddy debate behavior; theirs is simply more noticeable given the dearth of established parties this quarter. LEAD regularly produces quality candidates with good ideas and noble ambitions on how they can improve the lives of their fellow students. It would be nice to be able to hear them.

“Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son,” says Dean Wormer in Animal House. Just because you’re an adult in the eyes of the law doesn’t actually mean you have to act like it. Okay, yeah, maybe mooning strangers on I-80 and flashing the vajayjay sign in your holiday greeting cards is not exactly model behavior, but it can be stupidly entertaining and really fun.

I’m sure at least some of you are shaking your heads with mucho disapproval at my lack of criticism in regards to such antics. Fact: Everyone has done something immature in their lifetime. Even your Financial Economics professor.

I must confess that hearing about blink-182’s reunion last week made it seem like the sky was bluer and the birds were chirping louder. It took me right back to seventh grade, you know, when kicking someone in the shins was a sign that you were way hot for them and inhaling Wite-Out was just a way to pass the class time. These guys are the masters of immature. Not everyone with a wife and kids on the side can get away with streaking, but Mark, Tom and Travis freakin’ do.

As a freshman at Davis, I once asked a wise old fourth-year where the weirdest place he’d ever woken up in was. After a minute’s thought, he said he once woke up in the bushes outside the Co-op, went to class, borrowed a pencil and took a midterm. God bless college.

Town elders may disapprove, but what is immaturity if not a lifestyle choice? The entire basis for Old School was a bunch of old dudes who decided that they wanted to relive the glory days of stands, both the keg and one-night variety. Rest in peace, Blue.

If the guys of Old School and blink were chicks, their antics just wouldn’t be the same. Blast. Ridiculousness is just another one of those things that guys tend to pull off with slightly more flair, but it doesn’t mean a girl can’t try.

I remember when one of my high school friends came to visit during spring quarter of my freshman year. I was proudly showing off my bruises from just another crazy night where I attempted to climb a few fences when she had to throw in that she would never do something like that because she was a lady. Ladies are supposed to drink tea and crochet scarves and wear pearl necklaces. It was that last comment that compelled me to take her on a tour of Urban Dictionary.

There’s hardly anything left in the English language these days that cannot be linked so some sort of sexual connotation or innuendo. Nobody drives by a BJ’s Brewhouse without at least thinking something dirty. I can’t even take a yoga class without laughing at the fact that there’s a position called “down dog.” And now that everyone’s saying, “That’s what she said” and cracking up like there’s no tomorrow, there are just times when it seems like we’ll never grow up.

That’s what’s so glorious about college. It’s like being sealed off in a delightful little bubble that just harbors immaturity and encourages it to grow. It’s a place where making bongs out of plastic bottles with your friends could be the norm as opposed to somewhere back in your hometown, where you’ve probably got high school classmates who are, like, married. And working full-time jobs. With kids. This goes to show that while we might be the same age physically, our mental capacities are nowhere near that level.

That’s not to say that we’re not capable of being mature when the need arises. Like at family reunions, when you don a tie and beam as your grandmother divulges that you’ve always been her favorite and you’re really gonna be someone. These are the prime days of fun. Get away with what you can while you can. Very few people are allowed to act childish for a living and if you continue to do so past a certain age it’ll just be sad. So sing in cars, dance on tables, set off shitty homemade fireworks in parking lots and run like hell when you see a cop cruiser.

There will come a day when our bosses no longer humor us when we show up to work smelling of substance. When there will no longer be people willing to walk down the street with you wearing a toga, devil horns or blingy skankwear. But until that day, viva la vida.

MICHELLE RICK knows darn well that you can’t be old and wise if you’re not young and stupid first. Hit the marick@ucdavis.edu to tell her the weirdest place you’ve ever woken up.

In the classic 1989 movie Dead Poets Society, Robin Williams‘ portrayal of a poetry professor inspiring his students to love poetry for its intrinsic qualities – as opposed to a singular focus on grades – is at once touching and haunting. Touching because he genuinely pursues his belief that individuals must be motivated to discover true loves by themselves; haunting because the school administration’s reaction against the perceived casualness and nonchalance of his methodical madness is empathic.

For the school, learning is about tradition. Through hard work, prudence, an enduring commitment and a careful attention to detail, one masters the fundamentals. Consequently, this translates into grades and admission into top universities. By adhering to a formulaic, tried-and-tested strategy to success, students meet that goal. In this context, radical and independent thought are scorned.

In contemporary society, this approach most closely resembles the pre-professional culture attached to higher learning. In this structure, there is a bureaucratization of education. Emphasis is placed on inculcating students with certain branches of knowledge, with their replication of ensuing steps a measure of success. The goal is to enrich students with the necessary skills to perform a specialized task.

What this methodology of learning truly illustrates, however, is an ideology of a bygone era. This is not to say that industry, effort and grades are irrelevant. They are. But in its essence, learning is about the ability to reason what seems unreasonable. To impose a structured learning order as the school and professional courses do are to deny that learning, at its heart, is about confusion, conflict and disorder. The values that the school preaches, simply said, are antiquated as it is obsolete.

Learning is concentrated attention aroused by a profound awakening. In this sense, knowledge is not a canon of fixed percepts to be internalized, but rather a theory of human constructs. One’s objective is to discover from this knowledge.

And learning necessitates adaptation. It demands that one can reorient their pre-existing conceptions of the world around novel, unique patterns. It requires that one view education through a willingness to improvise knowledge in novel situations and creations. Versatility is necessary.

The value-added benefits of academic inquiry are multiple. It equips one with the eloquence to convey messages, to express clear thoughts using precise words, to write with flourish and finality. It imbues the desire to challenge parameters, deconstruct complexities, impose meaning, create new conventions. It empowers one to transfer the spirit of innovation across interdisciplinary breadths.

But the purpose of education is not only to enrich the mind. It is to provide the vital skills one needs to thrive in this world. That includes the patience to empathize with cultures and behaviors that are different, the grace to conduct oneself in unique situations and the confidence to lead fellow men against the unpredictability that life offers.

Also, in the simple pleasures of life such as watching a movie, learning doesn’t just help us celebrate the visceral nature of fast-paced actions. It is also about the capacity to appreciate the intensity of the moment, knowing that the challenges in life are real, lasting and menacing. It reassures.

And the benefits of learning are not provisional; they are permanent. Their redeeming qualities lie in its endowment of a fertile mind. It allows us to analyze, to reason, to reconcile structures and systems. Ultimately, it helps us make sense of the world, experience its complexities and examine its travails, challenge its conventions and make meaning out of it all.

The next movies on ZACH HAN’s list are W., Watchmen, Wanted, and The International. E-mail an alternative list to zklhan@ucdavis.edu.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a well-known schematic for a person’s priorities represented as a pyramid. Each tier corresponds to a “need” that can only be fulfilled once the tiers below it are satisfied. Although Maslow makes a fairly correct outline of our needs, there is still some controversy over its accuracy. Personally, I believe Maslow got it quite backwards for most Americans. I have written out what, in my opinion, is a hierarchy of needs that’s more applicable for today’s Americans.

Self-actualization. The foundation of this pyramid is self-actualization. Since this step is at the bottom of the pyramid, an American must satisfy this step before they can move up the hierarchy. The American usually grows up in a comfortable atmosphere where food, shelter and clothing are in abundance. At this point in time the young American has no physical struggles. All they can do is ponder the artificial meanings of life that the American culture has brought to them. This is the point where the young American realizes he or she would like to be a famous and beautiful singer or movie star. Once this self-actualization is made, the American can move onto the next step.

Esteem. The American child quickly realizes that they need to create their self-esteem by appearing like their famous role models. For girls, this is when makeovers, manicures and pedicures are all taken care of. Boys, on the other hand, engage in excessive work out plans and memorize lines from rap songs. Both children will consult with magazines like Cosmo or Maxim in order to figure out what personal image is deemed permissible. As soon as the American believes they have reached the appropriate image, they complete their transformation into famous stars by dwelling in promiscuity. Once the need to be with many partners is fulfilled, the American can move up a step in the hierarchy.

Love/Belonging. After the life of promiscuity has led to countless break-ups and hook-ups, the American desires to settle down for a meaningful relationship with a unique individual. The American seeks love and a sense of belonging, as opposed to just sex, from this individual. Marriage finally takes place to sanction their love for one another.

Safety. When Americans create a family, they seek top security; nothing can come in the way of the nuclear family. The family will make sure they don’t live in a godless society that may otherwise put the family in danger. They will also vote for the politician that is the most religious, promises the best homeland security, is toughest against immigration and believes in the criminalization of drug use. They will also implant their children’s mind with racist stereotypes in order to insure that they don’t hang out with the wrong crowd. The wealthier families will move to safer neighborhoods where they can bubble themselves from reality. In general, any threat to the American’s standard of living will be complained about in this step.

Physiological. The last step of the hierarchy, the most desirable place to reach, is this one. The average American only reaches this step at around 40 to 50 years old. Once the lower levels have been fulfilled, the American will start to take care of their body. They realize their body has taken a beating by the years of promiscuity, starvation diets and fast-food binges. In order to restore their youthful bodies, they enroll themselves into yoga classes and only buy from Whole Foods. Some even go as far as walking around the block every morning. The sooner the American reaches this step, the sooner happiness will take into effect.

Now, a fun exercise for my readers: Try to imagine what the American food pyramid looks like.

LIOR GOTESMAN knows he made some sweeping generalizations, but finds it easier to understand people when he puts them all in one category. Pass some time with him at liorgott@gmail.com.