Last week, the Department of Homeland Security announced a discouraging proposal to increase student visa fees for international applicants aspiring to attend colleges and universities in the United States. However, such a plan would serve as another obstacle for foreign students in acquiring world-class higher education, as well as a setback in recruiting brilliant minds to American institutions.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, in which two of the perpetrators entered the U.S. as students, American policy toward granting student clearances has been very restricted, which resulted in a very minimal admission rate of international applicants. Now that student visa regulations are less strict and less stringent, applications have started to skyrocket again, which the DHS viewed as the perfect moment to raise fees. The DHS justified the proposed increase from $100 to $200 on the argument to further intensify the protection of national security against terrorist threats by expanding the database of foreign students in the country.

But with all due respect, there was hardly any evidence that would show that these foreign students, who make up only 3percent of the total non-immigrant admissions in the U.S., are destabilizing our national security. Their extraordinary efforts in undergoing rigorous and costly processes, and fulfilling all the essential requirements for the opportunity to be educated in America,would suffice to say that they are worthy of our welcome as a country that has always embraced intellectualism.

As worldwide educational quality and standards have improved significantly, there is a monolithic challenge for American institutions of higher education to attract talented international students to come to our shores. In order to be competitive in the arena of global learning, a university also needs competitive students and other countries are viable sources of these exceptional students. However, slapping students with higher visa application fees does not point us in such a direction, but instead dissuades them from pursuing their academic dreams in America. Although $100 may not seem like that much for us, the DHS must realize that more than 50 percent of the total applicants are from third world countries. Since lesser-developed nations have weaker currencies, every dollar increase would translate to an enormous amount of money for these students.

Furthermore, we will not only deter gifted minds but also lose them as valuable resources of revenue, especially for financially-challenged public universities such as the University of California. Although American universities are the most expensive in the world, thousands of international students still choose to attend college here because of the top-notch quality education being offered. But if we impose another hindrance on top of the already complex and strenuous visa procurement process, it would not be a surprise if they consider the more affordable but promising universities in Europe where student visa applications are less limiting than in the U.S.

The fortification of America’s security and guarding people’s safety are undeniably paramount issues. However, snooping on peaceful foreign students whose sole intent is to be educated only creates a hostile image for America. Inflicting another monetary constraint on international students so that they can be tracked and monitored efficiently would certainly send an inimical and aghast message to them that foreigners in America are regarded with apprehensive and distrustful attitudes. As a consequence, many students would not even consider studying in our country.

In this time of an increasingly global economy, what America needs are intellectuals from other countries who could be recruited later on as propitious immigrants and productive workers. The best way to attain such objectives is to motivate potential international students by making the route to American education more accessible to them. By implementing a more welcoming policy toward foreign students, we will not only attract valuable assets but will also advance dialogue and understanding across barriers.

REAGAN F. PARLAN will be extremely delighted to hear your constructive comments, sensible suggestions and even violent reactions at rfparlan@ucdavis.edu.

With the California economy in its current condition, it seems unlikely that a state institution would involve itself in a financial scandal that highlighted a history of economic irresponsibility. Luckily, California college students know that they can always count on their beloved UC system for the most unlikely and irresponsible forms of corruption.

The most recent of this financial irresponsibility comes in the form of dishonest and deceitful hiring practices on the UC Berkeley campus. In recent weeks, a great deal of attention has been focused around the retirement of campus Police Chief Victoria Harrison. After serving as campus police chief for the last 18 years, Harrison made the difficult decision to retire and receive the University’s generous $2.1 million dollar package. As if such an astronomically high retirement package wasn’t enough of an insult to university students, who could be facing fee increases of anywhere from 7 to 10 percent next year, the UC Berkeley campus decided to step the situation up to a whole new level of dishonesty.

Almost immediately after making the decision to separate herself from the campus, and no doubt cashing that $2.1 million check, Harrison was offered a revised contract which would allow her to stay on as police chief, but at an increased salary. Now, the UC Berkeley campus has effectively thrown away $2.1 million dollars, as well as increasing Harrison’s salary from $160,000 to $175,000 annually. If these figures alone aren’t enough to send you into a rage, then consider that all this is happening weeks after the University of California system received word of a potential $417 million budget deficit for the coming academic year.

After hearing this news, one can only sit back and ask the important question of, “Is this legal?” The answer to that question is obviously a simple “no,” but UC officials have a long and proud history of taking clearly illegal happenings and continuously blurring the lines of law until the general public loses interest. However, at this time it seems clear that the Berkeley campus clearly violated its rehiring practices by offering Harrison a new contract in the days before she retired.

Many people might look at such a rehiring practice and wonder why such an obviously unethical action would have to be specifically prohibited by the university’s hiring guidelines. To answer that question, one must first realize that a number of these hiring and re-hiring guidelines were put in place after the university’s executive compensation scandal in 2006. Such practices were intended to prohibit UC officials from receiving unwarranted retirement bonuses, without ever leaving the campus.

Imagine that. Some of the policies that Harrison’s rehiring is thought to violate were actually put in place to make sure that things like this didn’t happen. In a time of record-high salaries for UC officials and dishonest practices such as the ones surrounding Victoria Harrison, one can only assume that UC executives are up to their same old tricks.

It’s just a pity to think that now UC students will have to deal with two economic fleecings – one coming from the budget-cutting state officials in Sacramento, and the other from top-ranking executives on our own UC campuses. I’m no over-paid, dishonest, and corrupt campus police chief, but if you ask me, someone around here is getting robbed.

JAMES NOONAN welcomes all comments, unless of course you are one of the overpaid executives referred to in his column. In this case, he will welcome cash and apologies. All apologies can be directed to jjnoonan@ucdavis.edu.

…no drama. Sorry to disappoint you guys. We did lose interest in one another though – I was too naïve for him in areas other than dating (i.e., finances, jobs, life in general), and he had an awkward sense of humor that I found only people who were heavily into anime and/or cosplay would enjoy.

In the end, it was a mix of not having anything to talk about and the fact that he’s had more luck with guys than me that ended our short-term attraction with one another. Too bad though, I could have gotten free Caramel Frappuccinos fo’ lyfe!

This might make you conclude that dating a friend must be the ideal route; especially since magazines and TV shows make it seem so standard. But the friendships they talk about are the ones where both parties always found each other attractive but couldn’t be together at the moment so they held off and remained all buddy-buddy for the meantime. That is until whatever obstacle that stopped them before has been removed, and now they can’t keep their hands off each other like two rabbits in a barrel.

Well I’m not talking about those friends. I’m talking about that female friend of yours that you can’t help but insult her every chance you get because she’s so dumb. Or ladies, that one guy friend you have who you fart or pick your nose in front of because you don’t give a flying duck what he thinks of you. And if he did, you’d feel perfectly fine telling him to go F himself anyway.

The kind of friend you don’t even feel flirty with because you’ve never found him or her attractive. Well…maybe once, a few months back, when you had those shots of who-knows-what and when you squinted, your friend just so happened to look like some C-list celebrity that you think is cute (see: Simon Rex, Amy Smart). But that was for like a second. And plus, you were really drunk.

So what happens when a completely platonic, “I wouldn’t even sleep with you if monkeys came flying out of my butt,” friendship accidentally becomes a relationship? It sounds ridiculous but it happens. Out of the blue, one of you guys gets the crazies and pitch the idea that maybe you guys should get together. Then the other person, who has developed the Let’s Agree With Bad Ideas Syndrome (LAWBIS) agrees.

At first, it sounds OK. Being in a relationship is like being in a friendship only you guys get to hang out between 11 p.m. and 2 a.m.without anyone asking questions, receive presents every now and then, are obliged to dress up and attend stuff together, lay down higher expectations for one another and be keener to each other’s “problems” lest you guys get into a fight about it…again. It’s perfection!

A friend I once had named Lan, who is dead to me now, used to have this boyfriend who was her really good friend. At first it made sense – they talked to each other on the phone every night, knew each other really well and had the same sense of humor.

That is, until they both realized they still acted like friends. They’d insult each other (and make other people in their presence really uncomfortable), check out other people with one another (and then get jealous), not really care about each other’s problems together and go out to bars without telling the other one. They didn’t want “things to change” just because they got together and indeed things didn’t.

They tried too hard to maintain their sense of self and that worked out fine except for the random times when they kicked into relationship-mode and got into fights about their “needs.” I suppose they made good friends but a bad couple since it seemed like they fought more often than ever. She wanted him to do sweet things but he found it unnecessary to be romantic to her since he never was before. Likewise, he knew too much about her exes because they’d talk about it back when they were friends (when it didn’t bother him), and he couldn’t find the same charm and mystery in her that he found in girls he was just acquainted with. Needless to say, being more than friends became too awkward and difficult for them so they broke it off.

(Then he became a bisexual and started working at Starbucks and then met me…boom! Full circle!)

LYNN LA would like to stress that her friend’s ex really isn’t the same guy at Starbucks and that her life isn’t as circular and poetically intertwined as she’d like her universe to be. If you’d like to throw sand in her eyes, e-mail her at ldla@ucdavis.edu.

UC Davis researchers are currently encouraging public institutions to add fresh produce from local farms and food markets to their menus. There are many foreseeable benefits to adopting a locally produced menu such as food production-consumption awareness, support for local economies and increased nutritional diet for doctors, staff and patients. However, hospitals and public institutions will need to assess the financial impact as a result of buying locally.

Consumers will be making knowledge-based decisions about the food they are eating as a result of buying locally. Increasing the amount of local produce promotes awareness about where the food comes from and how it is produced. In addition, doctors and staff working long hours will have a more complete and well-rounded diet. Patients fighting obesity may also benefit from the increased aesthetic and nutritional appeal of their food.

Local economies are also boosted as a result of public institutions and hospitals buying locally produced food. Local markets will be able to tap into broader commodity markets, as opposed to competing with large grocery chains. This also raises awareness about the environment and sustainable efforts made by small organic farmers, whose farms have less of an impact on the environment.

The benefits are numerous and obvious. However, the financial feasibility of offsetting the impacts on the environment by buying locally or increasing healthy diets is an assessment hospitals and institutions will need to make. Is adopting locally grown and produced foods a priority, and do the benefits outweigh the impacts on consumer pockets, or hospital checkbooks? The potential benefits will need to be addressed at an individual level for each hospital and institution. Whether they can finance better food products is up to their own discretion, but the impact on local economies and the environment is undoubtedly positive.