For the thousands of international students and researchers who come to U.S. universities each year, the academy is seen as a beacon of opportunity, where the people who work the hardest and the best ideas rise to the top.

As a union representing more than 6,000 postdoctoral scholars (also known as “postdocs”) at the University of California, this promise means something — the majority of our members are immigrants working in the U.S. on guest worker visas, and they are here because they have worked for years to reach the forefront of biology, physics, engineering and other fields. They have already earned Ph.Ds, and come to UC to perform cutting-edge research — think breakthrough cancer therapies, new models for the origin of the universe, stem cell research and more.

Imagine their surprise when after arriving at UC, they are told that although the contract the union negotiated states that health care coverage is available to all postdocs, it will not be extended to them. This is true despite the fact that their fellowships collectively bring in millions of dollars of research funding to the university each year and include salary support — making them effectively free labor.

Even though the contract provisions are clear, UC has decided to deny some international postdoctoral scholars the benefits to which they are entitled and that their lab mates receive. As a result, some have been forced to pay up to $1,200 a month for health insurance, and many simply go without or enroll in inferior plans they must pay for themselves. Some are covering small children or pregnant spouses, and they are all being put in an unfair, dangerous and extremely difficult position by UC.

For example, one UC Berkeley postdoc was told she would have to pay the full price of the plan herself — more than $400 per month — although all her colleagues in her department pay less than $10 per month to be covered by the same plan. She was not able to afford the high cost, so, with UC’s knowledge, was sold an inferior high-deductible plan by UC’s health insurance broker. Since then she has paid nearly $1,000 out of pocket for doctor visits and premiums.

Another UC postdoc came to the U.S. and was told he was on his own. Because as an individual he doesn’t have the purchasing power that large employers like the UC have, he was quoted over $1,000 a month for a similar plan the UC can buy for $400 a month. Postdocs work very tough hours and salaries start at less than $3,300 per month before taxes. $1,000 a month for health insurance just isn’t possible for them — which is why our union fought for access to affordable health care in our employment contract. UC’s unfair refusal to cover their benefits has already taken thousands of dollars out of their pockets, and every month costs them more.

Our members are dismayed to be adding another chapter to the UC’s troubling history of denying health coverage to people whom rightly and legally deserve it.

Late last month, UC graduate students and members of UAW Local 2865 made news after administrators exploited a loophole in the Affordable Care Act to enforce caps on students’ health care costs, causing one student to halt life-saving cancer therapy and another to experience near-paralysis after she was informed her treatment for a neurological disease was no longer covered.

It is hard to believe that these scenarios are unfolding in our own backyard, but they are. After all, it’s not just educational opportunities that attract great people to the U.S. — it’s hard-won rights like the principle of equal compensation for equal work. Our union has started a petition that has already gained hundreds of signatures — sign it today! We are demanding that UC end this discriminatory policy and reimburse the postdocs affected by this contract violation.

NEAL SWEENEY is a postdoctoral scholar at UC Santa Cruz and president of UAW Local 5810, the union for over 6,000 postdocs across all 10 UC campuses including about 900 at UC Davis. The petition can be found on Change.org.

On Feb. 12, Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) introduced Senate Bill 240. The bill would establish polling places at California State University and University of California campuses. It is slated to go through the Senate on or after March 15.

Senator Yee’s aim is to increase California voter turnout by focusing on student populations at public universities. As students who have a lot on our plates — we wish it were food — voting isn’t always at the top of our to-do lists. Just look at ASUCD Elections as an example, which often has a 20 percent turnout rate.

Historically, student voter turnout is low. Students living on campus are not able to vote as residents of Davis, and many opt to stay registered at their hometowns.

However, the number of youth voters is steadily climbing — one reason being the polls are located conveniently across college campuses.

According to an early National Exit Poll conducted by Edison Research, voters aged 18 to 29 represented about 19 percent of the national electorate in 2012. In 2008, youth voters represented about 18 percent and in 2004, 17 percent.

By instituting additional polling places on campus, students would feel obligated to vote. Additionally, closer places to cast votes would lend a sense of solidarity, with more students expressing increased interest in their community due to climbing voter turnout.

Luckily, UC Davis already has one established polling place at the Memorial Union. But only one. And who has time to wait in a long line just to cast a vote that will change how the country is run, how education is funded, when we live in a time in which waiting more than 20 seconds for anything is a bother?

So although student voters make up a small percentage of the national electorate, that doesn’t mean we can’t have a large influence. Size doesn’t always matter.

As members of ASUCD, we know how important the Association is to so many students. And most active members know how important Brett Burns is to the Association.

Burns is the ASUCD Business Manager, meaning he works with student government and unit directors to ensure financial stability within the Association. He’s the man behind the scenes, and he’s been dedicated to student success since he joined the UC Davis staff in 1998 and specifically ASUCD in February of last year.

Burns has accepted a position as Senior Assistant Dean for Administration at the UC Davis School of Law. It’s a level up, and we’re happy for him, but we’re also sad to see him go so soon.

Before Burns, we had former Unitrans General Manager Geoff Straw acting as interim manager, and before that, we had the legendary Mark Champagne, who held the position for a whopping 32 years. We hope the next manager is as enthusiastic as the others have been, and that they stick around a little longer.

We student leaders have lofty goals, with the Association acting as a training ground for bigger things. We need a financially solvent Association, but also one with a business manager that will allow students to take risks.

The ASUCD Coffee House started out as a hippie dream — a student-run alternative to corporate food service. Now it’s a thriving business and a major staple of campus life. The Bike Barn, Unitrans and Whole Earth Festival were once crazy ideas thought up by students, and now they’re respected institutions. Other, newer ASUCD units, like The Pantry and Aggie ReUse, could be similarly established sources of pride in the future.

We know that when the interim business manager is chosen, Burns will make the transition as smooth as possible. In the meantime, we encourage student leaders to continue dreaming big and hope the next business manager can assist with those dreams. And, of course, we thank Burns for all his hard work and mentorship over the past year.

You may not have noticed, but I think sex is awesome. In my perfect world, as long as everyone is being safe and consensual, I want them to have whatever type of sex makes them feel amazing and happy. And, importantly, I want refusal of or abstention from sex to be respected just as much as desire for sex.

Unfortunately, sex in the real world can play out very differently than the ideal. People can be careless, selfish and, at their worst, terrible and lacking in empathy. And that means that sex, in certain circumstances, can be an awful experience and/or leave you to deal with difficult consequences.

Today, we’ll go over what to do if you’ve had unprotected sex and what to do if you’ve been sexually assaulted. Reading about these topics (especially the second one) can be very difficult for some people, so if you need to stop reading now, do so.

When I say unprotected sex, I am referring to both instances in which there was hormonal contraception but no barrier and instances where there was neither. In both cases, I recommend calling the Student Health Center Advice Nurse first, as this allows you to discuss your concerns and get suggestions about the next steps to take.

The advice nurse hotline is 24/7, so they are available even when the health center is closed. So, if something happens Friday night, you don’t have to spend all weekend wondering what to do.

A main concern of having sex without a barrier is getting tested for STIs — particularly if your partner was not someone who knew/revealed their own STI status. You can schedule a rapid urine test for chlamydia and gonorrhea at the Student Health and Wellness Center (SHWC) via Health-e-messaging. If you don’t have access to campus resources, Planned Parenthood offers testing for a variety of STIs (the nearest clinic is in Woodland).

I also suggest that, as a preventative measure, you pick up a packet of emergency contraception (it’s cheapest at the SHWC pharmacy) and store it next to your condoms. That way, if you have unprotected sex, a condom breaks or something else goes wrong, you have backup on hand.

Depending on the circumstances, much of the above advice is applicable in the instance of sexual assault. However, before you worry about any of it, there are a few steps you should take.

First, get yourself to a safe place as soon as possible. If you want to report the assault, notify the police immediately (many people find that doing so helps them regain a sense of personal power and control). And, as much as possible, preserve the evidence of the assault. Save the clothes you were wearing at the time, and do not bathe, eat, drink or brush your teeth.

On the emotional/mental end of things, if there ever was a time to call in your support network, now is that time. Call a friend, family member or someone else you trust, who can be with you and take care of you while you deal with the aftermath.

Survivors experience a variety of emotions, from shock and disbelief, to anger, vulnerability and guilt. You may experience some or all of these reactions, and they may occur immediately or in a few days, weeks or months. So, try not to add more mental stress to yourself because you feel you are not reacting “appropriately.” Everyone deals with sexual assault in their own way. Most importantly, keep reminding yourself that what happened was not your fault.

If you are part of the UC Davis community, the biggest piece of advice I can give you is to contact the Campus Violence Prevention Program (CVPP). Their services are confidential, they refer survivors to the campus and community services that best fit their specific needs, as well as act as advocates.

The CVPP also supports survivors by accompanying them to hospital visits and interviews with law enforcement. Not only does this lessen the stress and anxiety that a survivor may feel about those situations, but it also helps those whose support networks are far away and cannot be physically present.

SAM WALL can be reached for questions at sewall@ucdavis.edu.

As many of you are aware, John Mackey, the co-CEO of Whole Foods Market, is a supporter of capitalism. He has written a book along with Raj Sisodia, another businessman, called Conscious Capitalism, in which it is argued that capitalism has been misrepresented and unfairly criticized. Mackey believes that in fact capitalism has been responsible for incredible increases in standard of living and technological progress.

I agree with Mackey on these points, and I think even most opponents of capitalism agree with this last point. I also should say that I like Whole Foods immensely and enjoy buying their products — and here I want to set aside the issue of evaluating the business venture and instead focus on Mackey’s political views.

Mackey believes that we should all recognize that business is often not only, or even primarily, about maximizing profit. Instead, Mackey argues that most businesses start with a purpose or vision, such as providing people with healthy organic foods or making it easier and more efficient to navigate the internet, as Google has done.

There’s certainly a sense in which this is true, and important: It’s not the case that businesspeople are concerned with making money by whatever means necessary. Often they are passionate about providing good services or products that consumers value. But does this mean that capitalists do not or should not act selfishly?

Clearly, Mackey thinks so. But since it’s obvious that the majority of capitalists are not acting altruistically, there’s a gap in his argument. What ultimately motivates them? To Mackey, it is the flourishing of the business and the achievement of a certain vision.

But why does Mackey view profit pursuit and selfishness as lower purposes and therefore less praiseworthy?

It’s because Mackey accepts an erroneous view of self–interest. If we hold people like Bernie Madoff or the Enron executives as archetypes of selfishness, then of course it is evil and wrong.

But observe what this does: We group these corrupt, short-sighted, self-destructive individuals with others who are primarily interested in promoting their own lives but do so in a rational, productive and honest way — people such as Henry Ford or Steve Jobs, who pursue their own profit by providing others with values through mutual gain.

Clearly, there is an enormous difference between these examples. And Conscious Capitalism, despite many of its interesting points and arguments, ignores this.

What is evil is not the fact that dishonest or corrupt capitalists are pursuing their self–interests (in the long-term, they aren’t even pursuing their self–interests at all) — it’s that they see others as obstacles to their values, and seek to subvert others and turn them into victims.

Ayn Rand noted that if we accept the false, conventional view of selfishness, this “permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites … it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men …” (The Virtue of Selfishness)

Mackey’s defense of capitalism ultimately fails because it fails to acknowledge that capitalists are primarily after profit (in the broad sense that they are pursuing their self–interests), and that this is totally compatible with being passionate about one’s work and having a vision.

It is moral and just to reap the benefits of one’s efforts and judgment in creating wealth. Laissez–faire capitalism is the system that allows people to pursue their rational self–interest free from the coercive force of government regulations and wealth-redistribution, and this is why it is the ideal system.

When TRISTAN DE LIEGE is not busy shopping at Whole Foods, he can be reached at tflenaerts@ucdavis.edu.

Editor’s note: The print edition of this article ran on Feb. 26 with the incorrect headline, “Religion as power.” The headline in the online edition is correct.