By The Editorial Board

 Within the past two weeks, ASUCD Senate has held two closed sessions that were not open to the public to discuss various issues on the UC Davis campus. As senate has previously only held less than five closed sessions since the start of Fall Quarter 2013, it is a surprise and concern that two have been held in the last two weeks.

The first closed session of this academic year was held Oct. 16 to allow senate time to discuss information regarding Intercollegiate Athletics (ICA). It was called in the middle of the senate meeting, which is regularly held on Thursday nights. The second closed session was the week after, on Oct. 23, to discuss the Whole Earth Festival (WEF). However, the details of the meeting are not clear to the public. Last year, about $20,000 was lost in the Whole Earth Festival budget.

While we understand that holding these sessions to discuss matters without interruptions could be more efficient and sometimes necessary in weighing personnel issues, the sudden spike in the frequency of these sessions speaks to the Association’s long way to go in improving transparency.

ASUCD Bylaws mandate that a notice of the closed session be issued which should include the specific type of matter that will be discussed, in addition to the title of any person involved in the session. Furthermore, all actionable votes and major decisions should be made public knowledge and must be reported in a way similar to that of routine meeting minutes (BL 2004). A mere one-word mention on a senate agenda is not sufficient and by no means can it be considered “specific”. Additionally, the major outcomes of these sessions are not reported online as regular meeting minutes occasionally are.

Thursday night meetings are the only times that ASUCD has open sessions with the public, which is why this time should not be used to hold closed sessions. It is imperative that students know what is happening on campus and within the student government, and holding closed meetings poses a threat to the transparency that ASUCD needs to maintain with the rest of the UC Davis community.

NOTE: This article was edited for accuracy on Oct. 31, 2014. The original editorial reported that $20,000 was taken out of the Whole Earth Festival budget. These funds were spent by the unit. It was also incorrectly reported that a closed session would be held Oct. 30. The Editorial Board expanded information on ASUCD Bylaws. The Aggie regrets these errors.

In September, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) sent an email to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi. The ADL is an avowedly Zionist lobbying organization with a long history of attempting to silence criticism of the Israeli state, usually via specious claims of anti-Semitism. They have also spied on Arab American activists in the Bay Area. This particular letter, which we can assume from its contents was sent to other campuses, recommended the heightened monitoring of specific groups organizing on campus. These included American Muslims for Palestine, as well as anyone involved with calls for “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” in response to Israel’s state policies of occupation and apartheid in Palestine, and its ongoing blockade and siege of Gaza. Paying risible lip service to free speech, the letter further suggests strategies for policing these students. Its full text is available here.

One cannot be surprised when lobbyists lobby. We could easily imagine the John Birch Society sending a similar letter in 1961 suggesting that schools monitor and police members of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and anyone supporting the Civil Rights Movement in general. We would recognize this as unacceptable interference by off-campus interests. We would also recognize this as baldly racist.

Harder to imagine is what actually happened. Chancellor Katehi shared the ADL email with the Council of Deans and Vice-Provosts, as well as the “Emergency Manager” for the UC Davis Police Department, with no framing beyond “For your information.” This can only register as approval, not even tacit, of the ADL’s letter. After all, it cannot be that every such lobbying effort is passed along to the upper administration as relevant “information.” Such an action is chilling in every regard. This chill is only intensified when we recall the Chancellor’s record in directing the police toward students engaged in political advocacy.

This comes at a time when discussion of Israel’s occupation and wars, once foreclosed, is becoming more critical in U.S. academia. Various organizations have declared support for the academic boycott. A majority of UC student governments have now passed divestment resolutions, in a sequence resembling the anti-apartheid demands for South African divestment in the ’80s. It seems certain that all campuses will eventually register their principled refusal of complicity with Israel’s occupation.

Meanwhile, the rhetoric of “civility” has become the new discourse through which administrations seek to suppress political engagement. UC Berkeley’s Chancellor Nicholas Dirks went so far as to suggest recently that the standard of civility demands we choose “between free speech and political advocacy,” apparently neglecting that they are one and the same, and that free speech exists precisely to protect the possibility of political struggle.

While this is a broadly pernicious scheme, it seems clear enough at present that the leading target of civility crusades nationally is Palestinian solidarity activism. As scholars and workers on this campus we abhor such politically motivated threats, particularly when levied from outside lobbyists. The most notorious recent example is that of Palestinian American scholar Steven Salaita, who left his tenured job at Virginia Tech upon being hired by University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, but was then “dehired” for the supposed incivility of his personal tweets, after extraordinary pressure from donors. The tweets concerned Israel-Palestine; Salaita has been a leading advocate of the academic boycott.

Professor Salaita will speak on Nov. 10 at 5:30 p.m. at the Student Community Center. The event is co-sponsored by the newly formed Faculty for Justice in Palestine. We are open to everyone engaged in teaching work on campus: full-time and part-time faculty as well as graduate student instructors and teaching assistants. We invite you to join us at the event, in the organization, and for a free Palestine.

Joshua Clover (Professor, English)

Sunaina Maira (Professor, Asian American Studies)

Faculty for Justice in Palestine

They can be reached through the Faculty for Justice in Palestine email: fjp.ucd@gmail.com.

Written By CHELSEA SPILLER

It’s almost Halloween! You know what that means: It’s the one time of the year when you get to be anything or anyone you want. Unless you’re a girl. Then, according to most of the costumes available, you can be a sexy anything or anyone you want. Yay! I guess.

OK, I’ll be honest — I’m kind of conflicted. In my experience, Halloween costumes made for women are essentially just sexualized versions of men’s costumes. While I think it’s problematic to say that revealing Halloween costumes are a negative thing, because that could imply an urge to censor women’s bodies, I do know that it’s nearly impossible to find a woman’s costume that doesn’t have the word “sexy” in front of it. But with men’s costumes, the opposite is true. This double standard, in my opinion, is where the issue lies.

On one hand, it’s kind of fun and empowering to dress up and look, well, hot. Maybe that’s just my narcissism talking, but who cares? A little narcissism is fine in small doses, and besides, I think it’s awesome when girls wear what they want and feel good about themselves — I’m all for self-empowerment and high self-esteem.

It’s just that, why is dressing however you want (which, a lot of the time, can be deemed promiscuously) only “allowed” one day of the year? It’s kind of funny (can’t you hear me laughing?) that people who say Halloween costumes made for women aren’t sexist at all because “girls should be able to wear whatever they want!” are usually the same people who, on any other day of the year, shame women for dressing “inappropriately” or showing too much skin in public.

So, what? Girls are only allowed to be empowered and wear what they want one day of the year? No wonder so many of us are eager to dress like a “sexy” cop or a “hot” nurse or a “naughty” slice of watermelon (yes, this is an actual thing). It’s our one free pass to put whatever we want on our own bodies. How wonderful for us!

The other issue I have with costumes made for women is that, when you compare the costumes to their male counterparts, they become totally unrecognizable. Have you checked out this Tumblr? Do it. I’ll wait.

What’s best about this blog is their juxtaposition of costumes made for men and women. Let’s take, for example, Scooby Doo. For men, the costume looks like – you guessed it – Scooby Doo! But for women, the costume looks like…a leotard with a tail? Paw prints on your boobs? I’m so confused.

There’s a plethora of these comparisons: a bunch of grapes which, for guys, looks like a cluster of oversized balloons taped to a spandex onesie, but for women look like a few flimsy pieces of fabric painted purple and tied with a string. Or, one of my favorites, a SWAT costume that, for men, looks pretty realistic with a bulletproof vest, body armor, boots, gloves. The whole nine yards. But the SWAT costume made for women is a mini-skirt and a crop top which the model pairs with an equally practical pair of fishnets and stilettos.

Now, I’m not saying that these costumes are ridiculous because they need to be more realistic. I know that’s not necessarily what Halloween is about. But why are men’s costumes so realistic? Why do they actually look like the person or thing they are meant to be dressed up as, while women look like a sexually objectified version of them? That’s a bit of an issue if you ask me.

It’s just strange that men get to be a realistic version of something while women get to be the sexualized version of them. What does this say to and about women? That we don’t get to be real things unless we’re hot?

Someone pointed out to me that maybe we can be both, and that’s why women’s costumes are made the way they are; but I think the fact that virtually every single costume made for women is a sexy version of something implies that we must be both. We have to be sexy and powerful or intelligent or whatever our costume is supposed to represent.

That’s great and everything; I think that women can be all of those things at once — but it also puts a huge level of pressure on women to appear in a way that amplifies their sexuality. On Halloween (and, let’s be honest, any other day of the year) women have to be pretty and whatever they want. Men just get to be…whatever they want.

On that note, I think I’ll make my own costume this year.

If you’d like to smash some pumpkins, summon spirits from the dead or concoct a pot of witches brew, email CHELSEA SPILLER at ctspiller@ucdavis.edu.

Written By ELI FLESCH

Watterson, Bill. Homicidal Psycho Jungle Cat: A Calvin and Hobbes Collection. Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel, 1994. Print.

In today’s society, the value of a college education has greatly increased. Recent trends in the structure of the job market have created a greater need for highly skilled workers. Students seem well aware that how they perform in college will play into their future careers, and they treat it as such. They go to great lengths to build flawless resumes and treat college as a sort of pre-professional endeavor. While this seems a natural response to an ultra-competitive society, it remains to be a surprisingly short-sighted way of treating college.

One of the reasons I love Calvin is because he’s a big picture man. In the column above, he shows Ms. Wormwood that integers are but trifles in the grand scheme of things. Of course, his attitude is a little fatalistic — perhaps he’s too big picture. But that’s the joke.

His attitude does help put education into a larger perspective though. It almost goes without saying that students’ careers will change throughout their lives, and that they will either be disappointed or pleased with whatever station they finally arrive at. But with the increasing specialization of certain disciplines, our generation may find itself in a situation where the highest-paying jobs require extensive education in a narrow discipline. This could have the effect of limiting job opportunities for students graduating from college.

Higher education has long been the bastion of the middle class. But in the past, a person could still expect to earn a decent living without a college degree. In this way, college — the cost of college has risen faster than the rate of inflation.

So what happens when college becomes the new high school?

After reading Calvin and Hobbes, it seems apparent that Calvin comes from a middle class family in suburban America. His true interests are eclectic and fundamentally childish: He daydreams of outer space and travels back to the age of dinosaurs. One could imagine him being disillusioned at a collegiate level, forced to choose one area of expertise in order to make a living. But this has become the standard.

As the value of specializing in a field increases, the value of general education seems to decrease. Speaking in terms of the big picture, a general education is vital. Being able to draw connections across various disciplines helps when the job market changes, as it often does.

Given that the increase in demand for highly skilled workers has made college a standard, it is not hard to imagine a future in which people will need more than four years of higher education to keep in pace with the job market. Graduate school has long been the cornerstone for those wishing to enter academia, law, medicine and various licensed professions. But this does not seem practical for a person undesiring of a career like this.

A solution could be to increase the amount of time undergraduates spend in school, scaling yearly costs appropriately. What would make this different than simply stretching curriculum, would be the addition of various specialties — a sort of compromise between undergraduate and graduate education. This system would look similar to elementary schools that run through sixth grade instead of ending at fifth grade. It gives students an extra year to retain information they learned in elementary school; likewise, an extra year of undergraduate education would help students specialize appropriately for the job market.

Of course, one more year would put an extra burden on universities. The increase of students would certainly warrant the hiring of extra faculty and create other associated costs. Here, I see no other solution than to talk about the gross underfunding that all public schools in the United States experience. Funding should be given far more liberally, and, most importantly, be seen as a smart economic decision. Having a widely educated populace has long been the hallmark of a strong middle class. I’m sure Calvin’s folks would love having him out of the house (and not destroying it) for another year of college.

Education in the United States is unsustainable as it is. With our world rank slipping, and the need for highly skilled workers increasing, we find ourselves in a position that requires a boost in all fields. As much as Calvin fantasizes about his school being blown into the sky, we’ll just have to force him to pay attention to integers; they hold the fate of this country.

To share your big ideas with ELI FLESCH, you can reach him at ekflesch@ucdavis.edu or tweet him @eliflesch.

On Sept. 9, 2014, the global rock icons of U2 changed the rock world forever. It was during Apple’s annual keynote presentation, which most people were watching for the iPhone 6 reveal. Luckily, everyone got a little something extra; U2’s brand new album released not on the iTunes store, but straight to every iTunes customer’s library. “Now that’s instant gratification!” U2 frontman Bono laughed, shaking Apple CEO Tim Cook’s left hand. Songs of Innocence is a revolutionary album release, the most groundbreaking music-to-person event in history. News outlets went wild; one overly excited headline read, “Did U2 just out-Beyoncé Beyoncé?” referring to her highly surprising, highly successful iTunes Store album launch.

The answer is a firm, definite “No.”

I have nothing against U2, and I also have nothing for them. They’re one of the most successful (and wealthy) bands of all time, and even if you don’t listen to them you probably know who they are (though their relevance is starting to dwindle in Generation Y). Their brand of inoffensive stadium-ready rock feels impersonal and quickly wears thin for my taste. I have no emotional connection to their work, so anticipation for new music was nonexistent.

The problem with launching an album in the manner U2/Apple did is that they assumed one-and-a-half billion iTunes libraries giddily anticipated U2’s new album, and would happily receive it for free, and be grateful for it. “The album,” Bono proudly proclaimed at launch, “is a gift [from Apple] to all of their music customers.” His train of thought is highly egotistical. It’s also pointless in this musical age to “gift” music for free. If someone wants music for free, they’ll find it on Spotify, they’ll stream it from BandCamp, they’ll play a record uploaded to YouTube, they’ll (gasp) pirate it from torrent-hosting sites. If you cannot (or refuse to) pay for music, nothing will stop you from getting it. Free music is hardly a revolution. The album’s release is, however, a revolutionary violation of consumer consent. The album infiltrated countless libraries. U2’s perception of a “gift” is irrelevant; if Davis Waste Removal hurled garbage at Aggie Pack as a promotion, that would be far from OK, even if the trash is a sincere gift. U2 fans were ecstatic to receive the gift, while many were enraged at their violation of consent. I was confused, and eager to find the proper place to throw this trash away.

But violation of privacy is not where the harm lies. It’s easy to decide not to listen to an album, and Apple released tech support that allows people to delete the digital record. But this album is far from a gift. U2 gave this album out for free not out of the kindness of their hearts, but out of a $100 million between them, Apple and Universal Music Group — along with a deal with retail stores to sell physical copies of a deluxe version, according to an article written in Spin magazine. They were paid handsomely for a “free” album release, unlike many musicians who have no choice but to start out their careers putting up their music for free on the internet.

Bono explained that the album’s unusual release was motivated by “a deep fear that [the] songs that [they] poured [their] life into over the last few years mightn’t be heard.” Right. Because artists everywhere aren’t pouring their whole hearts and souls into meaningful, personal sounds, released for free or a few dollars they work their asses off for, that will be forever eclipsed by bands who are paid millions of dollars to give out their music for “free,” out of, you know, generosity.

Later, Bono apologized. “It’s like we put a bottle of milk in people’s fridge that they weren’t asking for.” Lots of people are lactose-intolerant, U2.

Contacting STEVEN ILAGAN at smilagan@ucdavis.edu is free (on behalf of a multi-thousand dollar deal between him, his parents and UC Davis)!