Do you feel comfortable emailing your professor to ask for an extension on an assignment? Would you be okay telling your boss that there is a pain in your knee? How confident are you stating your culture, religion or sexual orientation on campus?

The systemwide Campus Community Survey is available today and invites you to answer questions such as these, with the aim of increasing inclusiveness and the sense of community on campus by identifying members of the UC community who do not feel adequately represented.

The results will determine the distribution of funds designated to make changes based on the survey’s findings.

Everyone should take the survey. Disregarding it would be forgoing your right as a member of the UC Davis campus and UC community. A survey on the UC logo was made available before the UC’s brief identity crisis. Everyone knows where that led.

Each campus is given the opportunity to insert questions that campus officials feel should be asked. What is perhaps a bit unnerving is the lack of questions pertaining to student comfort in the presence of UC Davis campus police. This is a point that should have been included in the survey, provided tumultuous events of the past two years in the UC and at UC Davis specifically. Fortunately, there are spaces where participants can state their concerns on any topic.

Along with the opportunity to air grievances, students can also take the survey in the hopes of winning an item from a long register of prizes, including thousands of dollars, electronics and various types of gift cards.

The survey — sitting in your email inbox right now — will be available for the remainder of February.

We here at The Aggie are all about low expectations; it leads to an overall better experience. Imagine a reader’s pleasant surprise when they discover the 15-inch article you’ve been touting is actually 30 inches with two large photos and a gorgeous byline. A thick stream of happiness is sure to ensue.

As such, we hold all facets of UC Davis under the same strict standard of excellence, with a somewhat questionable reputation. The dining commons are no exception.

If a specific dish is slated for a particular meal, it is the responsibility of the dining commons staff to follow through with their promise. Last-minute menu changes are unacceptable without proper addendums to the website as well. Otherwise, unsuspecting students dole out precious (and expensive) swipes for dishes they never wanted to suffer through in the first place.

Sure, the menus remain accessible to students of all backgrounds for every meal. But if a (hypothetical) dashing young Muslim editor reads “almond chicken” on the menu only to discover “pulled pork sandwiches,” he’s not likely inclined to happily settle for Blue Onion’s “seitan salad” just because a higher power won’t smite him with a bolt of lightning for it. He’s going to bike to Raja’s Tandoor and grumble about how his only option that night was a dish that both sounds and tastes like it’s made from the devil’s asscrack.

It is the DC’s responsibility to keep the thousands of students who utilize their facilities each day updated and informed. We are depending upon their word in order to make educated decisions about our dining options.

After all, if one plans to waste $14 on shitty food, they should at least be able to savor the shitty food they originally wanted.

Dependability and low expectations. At least McDonald’s holds true to the saying that a bad surprise should never end up in your mouth.

Sex & Society

Last October, Savita and Praveen Halappanavar were looking forward to starting a family. After marrying, they’d moved from India to Ireland to have their first child.

Unfortunately, when Savita was 17 months pregnant, she began to miscarry and was admitted to University Hospital in Galway. Doctors explained that the neck of the womb had opened, and that they would not be able to save the fetus. Savita and Praveen were heartbroken, but reassured that the ordeal would be over in a matter of hours.

The next morning, the fetus still had a heartbeat, but the doctors’ prognosis remained grim. Savita requested that they terminate the pregnancy. Despite the fact that the fetus had no chance of surviving, doctors refused her request.

“It’s a Catholic country,” they said.

Taken aback, Savita replied, “I am neither Catholic nor Irish.”

The doctors still refused to act.

As the hours passed and her pain became unbearable, Savita’s requests turned into pleads for mercy. Three agonizing days later, the fetus finally died.

But by then, it was too late to save Savita. She died of blood poisoning after another four days of suffering. Praveen was stunned.

“They just left her to die,” he said in an interview with Dailymail.co.uk. “All their focus was on the fetus … how can they put religion before someone’s life?”

Savita’s story will be made all the more tragic if we do not learn from Ireland’s mistake. Irish law dictates that abortions are only legal if the woman’s life is in danger, but Savita’s case shows the precarious nature of this exception-based policy.

Here in the U.S., many people take a so-called “moderate” stance on abortion. They do not want to see an all-out ban, but also feel that there should be restrictions. These people believe abortion should be illegal except in the cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is at risk.

This stance sounds like a compromise on paper, but is completely impractical — even dangerous — in the real world.

If the last election taught us anything, it is that people have vastly different opinions on what constitutes (dare I say “legitimate”) rape.

“Life-threatening” is a similarly ambiguous term; should doctors be given the choice of abortion morality instead of the woman at risk, situations like this can, have and will continue to happen.

Supporters of this “moderate” stance on abortion usually justify restrictions on early-term terminations because of a certain theoretical woman. This woman uses her right to choose as an excuse to ignore birth control. She has promiscuous, unsafe sex, then heads to the local clinic to casually scoop-n-flush the pesky zygote of the week.

This woman does not exist. But even if she did, the decision would still be her’s to make.

So instead of trying to dictate when women are morally “allowed” to have an abortion, why don’t we focus on preventing the need to make such a difficult decision in the first place?

This means doing away with abstinence-only sex education. This means showing your kids the condom-on-the-banana routine. This means encouraging openness and communication, and putting an end to the shame so often associated with female sexuality.

There is a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. Supporting the right to choose does not obligate you to terminate a pregnancy. It gives you the right to make your own decisions. I have the utmost respect for women who choose to keep their accidental pregnancies, but I also recognize the importance of the freedom to make that choice.

Roe v. Wade turned 40 last week, and despite the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to allow abortions until viability, the debate surrounding access to abortion in this country still rages on. I encourage you to think about how restricted abortion rights can affect you or your loved ones, and to get involved.

MARISA MASSARA is a pro-choice accident. You can reach her at mvmassara@ucdavis.edu.

Question: Facebook sent me an email last week saying I’m entitled to $10 because they might have used my pictures in a “sponsored story” without my permission. Was that for real, or is it spam?

Answer: It’s not spam. When you “like” something on Facebook — whether a business, band or movie — the fact that you “liked” it could appear in your friends’ news feeds. That’s why you always see those sponsored stories telling you that your roommate likes Chipotle (not a surprise) or your mother likes The Hangover (weird).

These companies pay Facebook to display the stories. Facebook profits, and so do the companies, if the advertisements are successful. Market research suggests peer pressure is a powerful way to change consumers’ buying habits. In these ads, you are the the celebrity endorser.

But think about the ads you see on TV. Brad Pitt doesn’t make those lame fragrance commercials for free, and Nike had to pay Tiger Woods to stare forlornly into the camera.

Did Facebook or Chipotle pay you for your “celebrity” endorsement? No. And in some states, that wouldn’t be a problem.

Not in California.

California law protects your right of publicity, under both the common law and codified state law: California Civil Code section 3344.

(“Common law” is the magical traditional law handed down to us from our legal forebears in England. It’s still binding law in California unless the legislature says otherwise.)

The right of publicity means companies can’t use your name, voice, signature, photo or likeness to sell products without your consent. If they do, you can sue them for at least $750 in automatic damages.

That’s what a group of people did in Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., a class action lawsuit filed in 2011. They sued Facebook for themselves, and on behalf of all similar people — the “class” — whose photos were used in ads.

You are probably part of this class. But you don’t have to be.

Just like I wished the pepper spray protesters would opt out of the class action settlement, I hope the members of the Facebook class will opt out. While each of the people who filed the lawsuit will get $12,500 in the settlement, everyone else will get $10 — if there’s enough money left over.

One more time: They’re trying to pay you $10 to settle a case that should be worth at least $750, while paying the three original plaintiffs $12,500 each. The lawyers will get $7.5 million. Even more damning: in Facebook’s original settlement offer, which the court rejected, Facebook offered no money at all to the individual victims.

To opt out of the settlement and preserve your right to sue Facebook for more than $10, go to fraleyfacebooksettlement.com/opt and fill out the online form.

Maybe you don’t want to sue Facebook, but you think the $10 settlement is weak sauce. In that case, you might want to object to the settlement. You have to write a letter that meets certain requirements, which you can find here: docs.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com/docs/notice.pdf

Q: It costs 50 cents to use a credit card at the coffee shop near my house. Arco charges 50 cents to use a debit card, but refuses to take credit cards. Mishka’s says they’re offering a “cash discount” that disappears when I use a credit card. Are these things legal?
— Anonymous.

A: Some of them.

There was a proposal to ban debit card fees a few years ago. Arco’s trade union mobilized to defeat it in the legislature, so it never happened.

Credit cards are different.

Merchants can’t charge a fee when you use a credit card — it violates California Civil Code section 1748.1. If they charge you a fee to use a credit card, keep your receipt. Then write them a letter — using certified mail — and demand a refund of the fee. Include a copy of the receipt in your letter. If they don’t give you a refund within a few weeks, you can sue them for a triple refund plus attorney fees.

Merchants can offer a discount to customers paying with cash. Not many merchants set this up correctly, though.

Mishka’s, for example, lists its regular prices on a large signboard behind the counter. Nearby is a small sign stating “these prices reflect a 50-cent cash discount” or something to that effect. That’s really not a “discount” as most people use the term. Those are the regular posted prices, which happen to increase by a couple quarters if you use a credit card. Sounds like a fee to me.

There are very few published court opinions on this topic because the potential payout is only a couple bucks. The dearth of controlling cases makes it difficult to say with certainty whether the sneaky Mishka’s sign is legal. So don’t go suing Mishka’s.

Daniel is a Sacramento attorney, former Davis City Council candidate, and graduate of UC Davis School of Law. He’ll answer questions sent to him at governorwatts@gmail.com or tweeted to @governorwatts.

Response to Brian Moen’s Jan. 24 column “A dose of capitalist poison”

Just read your story in the opinion [section] of The Aggie. Before you jump into the socialism bandwagon, try living in a socialist country! It will change your perspective. The reason so many people migrate legally or illegally into this country is because of the socialism to which they were born in.

— Anthony Bordas, reader

Sandbox Politico

If you attended my farewell you heard me talk about why the mantle of senator was one I bore with some amount of disdain. If you missed my farewell, then you forsook comedy gold and should immediately go on Facebook and watch all 17 minutes of it.

The message was this: I was uncomfortable with my title because when people uttered it, it was as though they raised me up or had some heightened expectation of me. “But that’s wrong,” I thought. I’m just like any other student. And because of this mindset, my friends, I was a mediocre senator at best.

You see, titles matter. ASUCD has an odd obsession with outreach and programming. When we’re in office we get lonely and we think because we have a fancy title people should de facto know who we are. This too is the wrong mindset.

Who’s your state senator, your member of Congress, your assemblymember? How many of you got all three? Point being, we barely pay attention to real politicians, so why should sandbox politicians expect the world to know us?

Titles matter because they give respect where previously there was none. It’s a bargaining chip to the administration and to real government officials in Davis, Yolo at large (if you just screamed “YOLO” we are no longer friends) and Sacramento. It’s these officials who have actual power and this is why the most important work ASUCD does stems from our titles.

Let’s go back just a year to the UCOP tax and Shared Services. The University of California President Formerly Known as Yudof wanted to levy a fairly hefty tax on all ASUCD transactions. Further, he wanted to consolidate our business practices into a joint office called Shared Services. These moves would have cost students and career administrators their jobs and forced the Senate to cut services across the board.

Outgoing ASUCD President Adam Thongsavat and his successor, current President Rebecca Sterling, entered into negotiations with UCOP and our own university administration to delay and decrease the tax. Think they would have listened to any student? Think again. They got the job done because of their titles, an example of a unified ASUCD succeeding.

Let’s go back further to 2009. Then ASUCD Senator Jack Zwald (who would later become president) balked when the University Rate Group sought to levy a 4.56 cent tax on all credit card transactions made at the ASUCD Coffee House, while exempting Sodexho, who runs the Silo and the dining commons.

Zwald called for a fairer, proportional tax in Senate Resolution 25, but was opposed by the contemporary executive office of Joe Chatham and Chris Dietrich, who wanted the fee entirely nullified. Too much infighting led to breakdown in the talks and the tax has stood ever since.

If ever there was an example of political infighting costing the student body this was it.

So you see, the biggest battles ASUCD fights are fought with school, city or state administrators — and these fights are primarily won or lost based on the degree to which our student government properly internalizes its own title swag, and protects those of us with less glamorous monikers (“columnist” doesn’t have the same ring).

I’ve given you two examples of ASUCD being in try-or-die scenarios, where their success or failure could tangibly, and monetarily, impact the lives of the entire campus. Compare that to my own program of Meatless Mondays (which I’m still damn proud of). Saving student jobs versus slashing the price of tofu? Which do you think is more important?

What’s more, most “senate projects” can be implemented without actually being on Senate. I could have feasibly requested an audience with Darin the CoHo director as a normal student, I most certainly could not get myself on the fourth floor of Mrak without one … at least not without a police escort.

ASUCD, you talk frequently about your elected station being a privilege, but I wonder if you truly know what that means. Your station grants you access and prestige other students do not have. It is your job to represent them because your title grants you a voice in the presence of normally deaf ears.

I thought my title was a burden, but I was wrong. The expectations it comes with should not be thought of as an embarrassment, but as a gift.

So ASUCD, reassess what the thrust of your job truly is, and what it truly means to help students. Because a title can make up for a lot in this world, even with a name as commonplace as Justin.

JUSTIN GOSS is just some ordinary guy who you probably have no interest in talking to. If you’d like to, however, you may do so at jjgoss@ucdavis.edu.