On Dec. 13, 2013, the world changed forever when Beyoncé released her fifth album, titled Beyoncé. The Queen’s musical baby came into the world less than two years after her actual baby, Blue Ivy, was born.

The surprise album left fans stunned (and so so happy), but also piqued the age-old question: can women really have it all?

Beyoncé was a success according to both the critics and the charts — Apple announced that it was the fastest selling album ever on iTunes, after 828,773 copies sold in the first three days.

From my perspective, Blue Ivy has been a success as well. She is dressed to the nines every time she’s photographed, and is featured on two chart-topping songs (“Glory” by Jay-Z and “Blue” by Beyoncé).

So it would seem that Beyoncé, at least, can have it all.

Her success so soon after becoming a mother shows that women can make achievements while simultaneously raising a child. However, Beyoncé is not your average mom. With what is likely a full-time support staff at her beck and call, her ability to pursue career goals is much more accessible than it is for many other mothers.

As a young woman about to enter the workforce, I face the reality of ultimately having to choose between a career or a family.  The pressure to start my career sooner rather than later in order to beat the “ticking clock” of my uterus is very real, as I face the fact that I am sadly not Beyoncé.

But I think the Queen’s success should ultimately be seen as inspirational, and not unattainable. Having a role model who shows that it is possible to juggle a child, a very public marriage and one of the most successful music careers ever proves that you don’t necessarily need to sacrifice one part of your life for another.

Despite some changes, our society still creates a work environment where women are forced to think about the effect of their career on their desire for children, and vice versa.

In her much-talked about “feminist manifesto,” Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead, Sheryl Sandberg addresses the issue of women in the workforce with anecdotes about her time working as a CEO at Facebook.

As Sandberg mentions in her book, the United States is the only industrialized nation to not have a paid maternity leave policy, according to the Human Rights Watch. This is one of the many aspects of the American workplace that puts women at a disadvantage.

However, there have been issues with Sandberg’s critique of women in the workplace, as she asserts the idea that women have to have it all — that they need the baby, the job, the husband, the 828,773 copies sold in order to be a successful woman. While this may have worked for Sandberg and Beyoncé, it’s not necessarily the path that all women should choose to follow. Feminism is about being able to make a choice and do whatever you want, and if you want to be a housewife with a baby or a forever single lady instead of having a spouse or a career, that’s just as feminist as wearing a rhinestone-studded bodysuit on your world tour.

Beyond having a career and raising a child, Beyoncé has maintained her relationship with Jay-Z — an extraordinarily successful musician and businessman — despite both of their individual fame.

Bey and Jay have lasted longer than most music careers — they’ve been together for over 12 years and they’ve been married for six. In her HBO documentary, “Life is But a Dream,” she frequently mentions how much support he has given her throughout their relationship, both emotionally and professionally.

Time and time again Beyoncé has proved that she is more than just Jay-Z’s wife, and even wrote about it in her song “Flawless,” singing, “I took some time to live my life/But don’t think I’m just his little wife.”

At the same time, Jay-Z is featured in multiple songs on her new album, most notably “Drunk in Love.” The video shows them being their cute selves on the beach, and their real-life chemistry comes through (although the content of this song is questionable, but that’s a topic for another week).

Beyoncé has managed to have a family in the spotlight while building a successful career, but she does leave women wondering if this is possible for those of us without 17 Grammys and the King of Hip-Hop for a husband.

Remember what they say: you have just as many hours in a day as Beyoncé. But don’t feel bad if they’re not spent looking for a boyfriend or a record deal.

If you want to talk more about Blue Ivy and her impeccable style, HANNAH STRUMWASSER can be reached at hstrumwasser@gmail.com.

In March 2003, former UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef announced that UC Davis would shift its athletics program from Division II to Division I. This move, which has been funded by student fees, was initiated by the passing of the Campus Expansion Initiative (CEI) in November 2002. The CEI “put the students on record as supporting an increase in student fees to help fund the move to Division I and the Big West Conference.”

It has been six years since UC Davis entered into “the big leagues” of college athletics and received full Division I certification by the NCAA. Instead of reaping the rewards of a successful move to Division I, the University has struggled to adapt and has been unwilling to follow the guiding principles of the move.

These principles state: “UC Davis cannot reduce its broad-based program, but rather must seek to add sports” and “There can be no ‘tiering’ among UC Davis sports,” as well as a few other requirements.

To many students and affiliates of the University, the principles laid out in the CEI were just as important as the move to Division I itself. These principles represented UC Davis’ outward rejection of the failing “student-athlete” model that many major universities in the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) held. UC Davis was meant to be the trailblazing force in the fight against the revenue-generating focused visions of Division I athletics.

However, the University crumbled under the spotlight of Division I pressures. In 2010, UC Davis cut four sports: men’s swimming and diving, men’s wrestling, men’s indoor track and field and women’s rowing. Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi and the administration cited the state budget crisis as the reasoning for these cuts, while at the same time increasing the funding for sports such as basketball and football.

It seems strange that the state budget crisis would have any impact on the Intercollegiate Athletics (ICA) program whatsoever, as it is funded largely through student fees. According to the University’s own Equity in Athletics Data Analysis report, which breaks down the revenue and costs of specific sections in the ICA, the University does not actually discuss the use of any state funding in its athletics department. Currently, UC Davis student fees fund 75 percent, or $18 million, of the total Intercollegiate Athletics budget. Students pay upwards of $600 a year to fund the athletics program.

So what are the real reasons for the cut? No one really seems to know.

Furthermore, the ICA budget has increased yearly. All of this adds up to the conclusion that state budget issues were not the actual reason for the cutting of four sports in 2010.

UC Davis’ ICA program has faced many changes in the 11 years since the move from Division II to Division I. Athletes and coaches have come and gone, there has been a chancellor change and the Aggies went from champions of Division II to bottom feeders in Division I.

Beyond their unwillingness to follow the principles, the administration has shown a tendency to block the quest for answers regarding past decisions. The lack of transparency is blatantly obvious in Katehi’s decision and explanation of the cutting of the sports.

The administration’s lack of transparency exposes the blatant disregard for honesty and straightforwardness shown by Katehi during her decision to cut UC Davis sports and is something that she should be held accountable for.

Furthermore, what is the purpose of this disregard to the principles and honesty if the results are subpar? Since the move to Division I, UC Davis has struggled greatly as evidenced by the 9-22 record for men’s basketball and the 5-7 record for football this year. Compare this to UC Davis’ Division II career, when it won six Director’s Cups, which are given to the top Division II university in the nation.

After the preponderance of information regarding the failures of the transition to Division I, we are left wondering why the administration would make promises it doesn’t keep. But more importantly, the lack of transparency that occurs in the administration’s decision-making process is concerning not only in regards to UC Davis athletics, but also in regards to the future actions of the administration.

I could not write a column on coming of age in film if I did not make reference to The Breakfast Club, the famous 1985 John Hughes comedy-drama. That would be harder than criticizing Donald Trump and not mentioning his terrible hairdo. Such an omission would ignore the fact that this film has resonated with many young adults and has become a symbol of what it means to grow up in a society that stereotypes and categorizes.

Last quarter, I was fortunate enough to find myself in Psychology 1 with over 500 other undergraduates. I loved the class because it helped me judge people in ways I never thought possible. I love judging people. I also found myself with a masterful, new, more whole and more insightful view of the way people work.

Now, upon reading that last sentence, I’m willing to bet my two cents that you categorized me as one of those pretentious assholes who thinks they know everything about the world after one psych class. We make assumptions like these because they fit nicely into our concepts of other people. I may be an asshole, but not because I have an inflated opinion of my psychological knowledge.

The Breakfast Club attempts to dispel the power of stereotypes by giving each main character a shade of gray. The “criminal” John Bender lives in an abusive household, “athlete” Andrew Clark is pushed too hard by his father, “brain” Brian Johnson has attempted suicide upon receiving a bad grade, “basket case” Allison Reynolds is a compulsive liar and “princess” Claire Standish is a virgin.

The first time I saw this movie, I saw what the director wanted me to see — namely, the fact that beyond the way we’re socially perceived, we all have certain growing pains that have the power to bond us.

The second time around, I was less impressed. It struck me that the individual struggles of each character were archetypical to who they were perceived to be. If Claire was one of the most popular girls in school, with a flair for fashion, her virginity may not come as much as a surprise as it is portrayed in the movie. This double standard can help us define our individuality, and how that individuality can change as we age. Whew, this is a doozy.

It goes without saying that a large part of who we are is a byproduct of who we want to be. But we cannot ignore that others have an influence on us as well. If we are not able to resolve our identities in the earlier stages of life, it is likelier that a person may experience crisis later in life.

I fear that people may adhere to their stereotypes as a way of resolving identity issues with ease. Does The Breakfast Club have anything to say about this? Well, it just so happens that it does. In the final essay Brian turns into the strict Mr. Vernon; he points out that despite how he views each member of this “club,” they all have some of the aforementioned qualities.

I’m not sure I’d like that. I like things cohesive. Simple. I’m afraid to wear clothing with words on it because it disrupts the continuity of a plain shirt. So that’s why it’s hard for me to swallow that we can be such a mix of so many traits.

But if I don’t like a blend of identities, and I don’t like a single stereotypical identity, how do I proceed? The Breakfast Club leaves us here. For me, identity has been picking and choosing what I like from my culture and my life. It’s an ongoing process in which sharp turns are poor turns. Age helps us reflect on these changes.

In eighth grade, I had god-awful hair that went down to my shoulders because I wanted to look like the rocking and rolling John Lennon. So I left that fragment of my identity behind. Didn’t dig it anymore. That’s okay.

There are more serious examples. Some people think that radically changing their identity for college is good. It isn’t. Ninety-nine percent of the time, your identity doesn’t need a change like Donald Trump doesn’t need any more hair gel. Let it be. Let your coming-of-age dictate how you choose to shape your identity, and be cognizant of how the groups you may be a part of play into the equation.

Okay, I’m done preaching. Watch the movie. Join me next week. I’m off to bring pretension elsewhere.

If you want to tell ELI FLESCH that making fun of Donald Trump is out of line, you can reach him at ekflesch@ucdavis.edu.

Starting Spring Quarter 2014, graduating students of UC Davis will no longer wear the traditional black cap and gown for commencement. Students will have to rent a blue gown with gold piping with the addition of the UC Davis emblem on it.

The new gowns are made out of 100 percent recycled fabric, and this is the first time Herff Jones, the company that sells graduation materials, will offer sustainable graduation materials — meaning the way they’re laundered and what they are made of are better for the environment.

Last year, the rental price was $42. This year the price is $52. This price is still among the higher graduation costs of the UCs, and Davis students don’t get to keep their gowns. For example, UCLA’s price for a black cap, gown and tassel is $37. UC Irvine’s is $58 for the same items — except their students don’t have to return their purchase.

According to UC Davis Stores Director Jason Lorgan, the reason the price has increased is due to the higher quality of the material. When the gowns were plain and black, we were renting from a pool of graduation gowns open to the rest of the nation. With the new sustainable gowns, UC Davis selected its colors and added the emblem, ensuring that only UC Davis students will wear them.

Even though no other school in the nation will wear these gowns, UC Davis isn’t even purchasing them — they’re renting from Herff Jones themselves. Lorgan said that the gowns cost approximately $40 for the school, leaving a 23 percent profit that will allegedly go toward operating costs of the Memorial Union (MU). So will prices go up in future years due to the planned MU renovations?

Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi requested that the emblem be included on the new gowns. Why? To differentiate ourselves in pictures. To show that we are from the “prestigious UC Davis.” But let’s be realistic: the emblem will probably end up being covered by any stoles or graduation flowers students choose to wear.

Apparently it didn’t make sense to continue with all-black gowns, due to reasons such as Aggie Pride (!!!). Here are some facts: blue and gold are the colors of every single UC school. No other UC campus has changed their gowns except for UC Merced, who changed to a solid blue this year. No other UC has its name on its gowns. Did anyone consider the fact that specialty groups and organizations on campus purchase colored, embroidered stoles to wear against the traditional black gowns? If the school is so concerned with image, are they okay with the clashing colors of established groups’ graduation accessories?

Why does it matter that some students would want to keep their gown? Besides sentimental reasons, many would want to resell their gowns to save money. Black gowns signify a collegiate graduation. Now what happens to the students who were planning or have already purchased an all-black gown from a third party in order to save money? Will they be able to walk at graduation? What happens if a student can’t afford the increased price?

Sure, the rental gown is apparently a better-looking garment. But let’s be real. Graduating students could care less about the quality of a gown that they don’t even get to keep; they are broke from textbook prices and tuition.

Becoming more sustainable is the reason UC Davis decides to pursue certain projects such as this. But when it’s costing the students more and keeping its decisions in the dark, this only seems like yet another occasion in which the University is squeezing one last dollar out of its students.

As a transfer student to UC Davis I was unsure of what to expect of the environmental movement here on campus. Unsure of where to look for campus environmentalists, I was sure the Environment Club was a good place to start.

However, it was CALPIRG that really snatched me in off the street and got me excited about their “Million Clean Cars Campaign,” which has received a lot of attention from Gov. Jerry Brown as well as other campaigns such as their campaign against “Citizens United.” This important Supreme Court decision has allowed unprecedented amounts of corporate monetary contributions to enter our political system, undermining public and environmental protection efforts.

The CALPIRG “Anti-fracking” campaign is part of the brand new UC Davis Chapter of the Students Against Fracking, a statewide coalition with the California Student Sustainability Coalition (CSSC), joining student organizations statewide in support of a moratorium on fracking in California. Many cities, such as San Francisco and L.A. have said no to fracking, which pollutes groundwater and our oceans with carcinogenic chemicals and has been shown to release harmful greenhouse gases and cause earthquakes. In an effort to reach out to other environmental groups on campus to gain more support for the statewide ban, I decided to attend my first Environmental Club meeting last quarter.

I quickly began to understand why I had heard a less than flattering reputation of the club, although it is an active part of the campus community and a valuable organization. There were not any environmental issues addressed during the first half of the one hour meeting, which consisted of a laundry list of activities that did not include environmentally conscious agendas or information. Although very fun activities such as ice skating, snowboarding and skiing were addressed, to my disappointment, issues such as the inevitable carbon footprint resulting from such activities and concerns for the current devastating drought in California were not.

A guest speaker spoke of the recycling services offered in the City of Davis, which was very informational (although the services offered here on campus recycle a larger variety of items). However, my complaint is that no time was reserved for public comment on environmental issues, and the only environmental issue raised was cut off — the meeting had run past 8 p.m. A member had mentioned BPAs in recycled receipts and other materials; however, unfortunately neither the guest speaker nor any club members had heard about the issue and it was largely dismissed, despite the speaker’s efforts to explain the issue.

The Aggie opinion piece “Guest Opinion Re: Recycling” discusses this important issue, in which recycled products are often released without proper public health hazard risk assessments for the toxic chemicals that are retained within paper, plastics and other materials used and reintroduced into the market.

Concerned about the lack of involvement with the club in campus environmental issues, I decided to approach the club personally. I was able to speak with the president of the club, Patil Karkazian, about the fracking campaign in hopes of gaining the club’s interest. I was quickly deferred to a Google document on which any environmental concerns could be uploaded for students to look at when they felt like periodically checking the Google form. My request for any face time at club meetings was not even slightly entertained.

I tried to convey my concerns for a lack of representation from the club of the environmental concerns on campus to the club president, and she simply responded to me with a blank expression: “This is more of…a social club,” explaining to me that these were just the things that people want to do.

Looking at the Google form later, I found another student who had asked to attend that very same meeting, and had offered to bring all the materials needed for the club to make Valentines for Congress urging them to support a statewide fracking ban. When I emailed the club president about my interest in several activities on the form I received no response. My interests included fracking and a GRID solar opportunity, which would require great leadership and organization, but would create incredible benefits for our students and communities if implemented.

Fracking has been shown by Cornell University to be as much of a greenhouse polluter as Big Coal, and has been shown by a Colorado study to contaminate groundwater supplies.  The EPA has closed investigations on groundwater contamination in several states despite findings from their own scientists suggesting causal links between fracking and drinking water contamination. Surprisingly enough, 9 billion gallons of waste water containing these carcinogens are legally dumped off the California coast each year, and millions of fresh water that should be used in Californian communities and agriculture are wasted each time a fracking operation begins.

If you believe as I do that we live in a time when our world needs to hear the valid concerns of environmentalists, please consider joining Environmental Voices, a non-profit organization in Davis committed to environmental advocacy and research. I met the founder of Environmental Voices at an environmental advocacy rally — the group focuses on public involvement as a vehicle for change, and internship positions are available. Please contact me if you are interested in an “Environmental Voices” club on campus for the advocacy of current environmental issues. You can find us on Facebook and online at environmentalvoices.org. You can also visit UC Davis CALPIRG and Students Against Fracking on Facebook and online as well.

Kelsey Craig
krcraig@ucdavis.edu
Third-year transfer, environmental toxicology major