Mount Hood

Editor’s Note

Stephanie Blair | Editor-in-Chief

To the first-years, still fresh on our campus — welcome. To the already soul-sucked returning students — welcome back.

As the horror show that is 2017 begins its final quarter, we return to classrooms with two Wolves already having passed away. A heartbreaking trend our school has developed recently: one that I wish we could shake.

However, there is, as always, hope. I truly believe that the students of Western Oregon are, if nothing else, intrepid. We come together in times of hardship and tragedy, in times of celebration and joy — or both, during homecoming weekend.

I have high hopes for the year as a whole, even if I don’t have it in our football team, who will be facing Azusa Pacific on Nov. 4.

In the coming nine months, my final three terms at Western, I will be working with our incredible staff to produce a publication that scrutinizes The Man — whether that be the president of our nation or our school. The Western Journal will pursue the true and pertinent information that you, the reader, have a right to know.

I have a tendency to chase truth like a dog after a rabbit, a habit I’ll do my best to instill in each and every staff member of The Western Journal before I leave our campus for good.

And we’ll have fun.

This year we’re introducing the Lifestyle section, something of which I’m sure a number of my predecessors would disapprove. I, on the other hand, think that this is the content that our paper is missing. I’m a self-proclaimed news junkie and will badmouth sites like Buzzfeed any day of the week, but I still click on their articles when a friend posts one on Facebook — I need to know what Starbucks drink I am based on my zodiac sign.

With luck and patience, we will strike a balance of hard news and lighthearted content. In this political climate, I think that’s exactly what our students need. If it’s not, feel free to let me know. As a student-funded publication, independent from the university’s administration, our loyalty and duty is to Western’s student population.

So, welcome to a new year at Western. Come join us for another round.

Editor’s note

By: Stephanie Blair
Editor-in-Chief

The past eight months have been filled with hardship for many of our students, whether it be due to the election, the tragic loss of two fellow students, the pressures of finishing a degree or other personal struggles. It’s been a hard year for many.

It’s also been a year filled with joy. Our track team went to nationals and slayed it, Alma Pachero left a legacy project that the community rallied around, Western received grants to fund essential pre-existing projects and begin new ones, millions of women found solidarity in marching together … and Bob Dylan won a Nobel Prize, I guess, so we learned that anything is possible.

My point is that as dark and strange as times may seem, they’re never so dark that you can’t find someone willing to share some light.

As Editor of The Western Journal this year, I’ve had the pleasure of delivering the good and the bad in the form of this paper each week. However, it has been our mission, as a staff, to deliver news about the students and for the students and, in doing so, I’ve seen a lot of good. America may be in turmoil, but Western is supporting itself through inclusive actions and kind-hearted community. I can’t express the pride I feel being a wolf this year nor the excitement I feel to serve as editor-in-chief next year and watch our students do incredible things all over again.

It’s easy to feel like the world is falling apart around you – I certainly do, sometimes – which makes it all the more important to stay focused on the future and only dwell on the good moments. I, myself, have taken to only posting on Facebook when something positive is happening. Admittedly, this means I only post about once a month, but it also means that when I look back and when memories pop up over the coming years I will only be reminded of the good. Lord knows I don’t need any help remembering the bad.

So, keep your head up, dear reader. Spend your summer however irresponsibly as you choose, but come back determined and ready for another year of proving exactly what ‘millennials’ can do. And congratulations to those fortunate souls who are about to graduate, I can’t wait to see more Western graduates in the world making the changes they want to see.

From all of us here at The Western Journal, until October: good night, and good luck.

Contact the author at journaleditor@wou.edu

Why linguistics should be taught in public education

By: Kristin Eck
Copy Editor

It’s time that people in the linguistics world stop differentiating themselves from people in the “real world.” I’m excited for the opportunity to live in a future that will incorporate linguistics into the public education system.

When I tell people I’m a linguistics major most of them assume I either know or am studying multiple languages. I tell them that linguistics is more about understanding how language operates as a system, rather than the physical expression of language as seen through various world languages. In other words, I study linguistics and I’m shockingly fluent in only one language.

Many of my discussions end in confusion about why someone would ever study such a non-applicable subject. To many people, linguistics is considered a fairly new field of research that didn’t really gain traction until the ‘70s with Noam Chomsky’s work on cognitive linguistics.

I’m no expert in linguistics. In fact, I’ve barely dipped my toes into its imperceptible depths. But as an undergraduate student with a passion for what I’m studying, I can attempt to answer the questions that seem to have so many puzzled: what will I do with linguistics and what is it even good for?

I’ll start off by saying that I believe linguistics should be widely taught in public education. I’ll even be so bold as to say that linguistics could easily replace traditional grammar lessons and greatly improve the rate at which people of all ages acquire second languages.

Have you ever had a teacher tell you not to start a sentence with but? Or not to use “that” after a semicolon? Or not to switch tenses in a sentence? We’re told not to do very specific things in public education but are never told why. Linguistics has the answers.

Linguistics has the potential to improve reading and writing skills while bettering language acquisition and cross-cultural understanding.

I recently read an article about two educators in New York, Mary Moran and Patricia Paugh, who successfully incorporated linguistics into their third-grade urban classroom in an effort to achieve academic literacy. Their daring venture paid off and their students improved not only their writing and speaking skills, but also their critical thinking ability.

Moran and Paugh had to accommodate common challenges found in urban classrooms and they were discouraged that some of their students struggled more than others. Many of their students came from different backgrounds, some with English as their second language, and struggled to assimilate to their learning environment. The biggest challenge for the educators was trying to get their students to understand how to use appropriate language in specific genres, primarily academic writing.

Their project was aimed at bringing context into the classroom so students could relate to what they were being taught and understand how language was used differently in various fields. They started by accumulating thematic collections of texts, such as, gardening books, books about animals and cookbooks. From their collections, Moran and Paugh decided that a gardening unit would suit their classroom curriculum for fall semester without encroaching on their state’s mandated core curriculum.

The garden unit gave students the opportunity to work in their school and community gardens, as well as go out to local farmer’s markets and interact with the community. The students were given journals and were told to write down common words they observed and anything they found interesting. The farmers and volunteers at these sites also helped educate the students and taught them about planting, weeding and the importance of good soil.

When the students returned to the classroom, they would free-write in their journals about what they had experienced, using the terminology that they learned that day. These experiences and lessons helped students understand how to write academically by connecting real-life experiences to their writing and making them relatable and memorable to the students.

As I mentioned before, their efforts paid off and the students literacy increased year after year. By cultivating the students’ language awareness, their students were able to identify certain language features present in different genres and use them appropriately. The focus on student-generated knowledge, rather than curriculum-based knowledge, gave the students confidence to utilize the knowledge they had acquired. They eventually went on to share their knowledge with other students in the school.

In linguistic terms, Moran and Paugh were incorporating two linguistic theories of learning. The first is called Critical Pedagogy of Place, which involves the physical spaces of communities that we often take for granted and is aimed at making education personally relevant to students. Additionally, CPP is designed to mold students into active, helpful members of their communities by giving them contextual relevance in relation to what they’re learning.

The second is similar to CPP but focuses more on language; Systemic Functional Linguistics aims to connect language to social contexts. SFL is important in this story because the educators observed how common core language arts lessons are designed to be as a received set of skills. SFL is different in that is focuses on the function of language, and it’s the function of language that drives its purpose in society.

These are just two linguistic theories that I believe could vastly improve our education system. It’s difficult to remember what it was like learning to write because English-speakers who grew up in the public education system learned that skill at such an early age. However, many students don’t have the privilege of growing up in an English-speaking household where things at home have the same name as they do in the outside world.

But besides helping people with language acquisition, theories like SFL simply make more sense from an educational standpoint. Currently, language arts, writing and grammar are taught as a specific set of skills that students must master. Students are given no explanation as to why they’re learning this stuff, and if an inquisitive student dares to ask for an explanation, most of the time they won’t get a satisfying answer.

I am excited to be a part of a future where SFL and CPP could be universally incorporated into the education system. I’m also proud to say that Western is one of the few schools in Oregon that actually require teachers to study linguistics. While I don’t plan on making a career out of teaching others, I do hope to further research in this field, research that advocates for linguistics making its debut into the “real world.”

Contact the author at keck14@wou.edu

Grammarnazis, feminazis and real Nazis

By: Zoe Strickland
Managing Editor

There have been many times in my life, in both formal and informal settings, where I or someone around me have been called a word that has been combined with the word ‘Nazi.’ These portmanteaus, words that join the meaning of two other words, are often viewed as being harmless ways of communicating that someone is excessively passionate about something. The most common examples of portmanteaus in this context are either ‘grammarnazi’ or ‘feminazi.’

Though they’re often viewed as being harmless, tacking ‘Nazi’ on to other words is a big deal. By doing so, people are trivializing the perpetrators of a major historical event, while also making a mockery of those with negative ties to the Holocaust.

As of 2016, Time magazine reported that there were about 100,000 Holocaust survivors still alive. The dwindling number of survivors “puts the responsibility on us, the next generation, the children of survivors, the grandchildren of survivors, to become as articulate as we can be in maintaining this memory and the mandate that comes with it,” said Michael Zank, the director of the Elie Wiesel Center for Jewish Studies at Boston University, in a July 2016 interview with Time.

Even if someone isn’t a relative of a holocaust survivor, it’s still important to help cultivate the history of the Holocaust. Borrowing terms, especially ones that relate to anti-semitism, results in the exact opposite happening. Rather than acknowledging the damage that was done to various groups of people, it erases the events to make room for the comparatively minute, everyday intolerances.

Using the word ‘Nazi’ as a way of getting a point across won’t actually do any good. It just makes the user look uneducated, and somewhat intolerant to the passions of others. In this case, either the conventions of a language or equality for both genders, respectively.

As someone who enjoys being passionate about things and also has a family history of relatives who were deeply affected by the ramifications of the Nazi regime, I’ve always been perplexed by why the usage of the word Nazi to refer to things besides the aforementioned regime has been accepted into the cultural canon. I’m someone who naturally tries to look at things from different perspectives, but I can’t seem to understand the perspective that has room for this type of insult. I don’t understand how someone can even begin to draw the connection between a feminist and a Nazi, or an eloquent person and a Nazi. This could be an overreaction; but being called something that’s associated with such a revolting line of thought doesn’t sit well with me. It never will.

Yes, society likes to label people who annoy them. And no, besides the obvious connection to acting like you’re on a playground, there’s nothing wrong with that. People, especially in Western culture, like to have vocal outlets where they can express their dislike of something. My beef isn’t with needing a word to describe frustration. My problem lies with the words that are being used.

Why does annoyance or dislike have to translate into words that literally reference the genocide of Jews, POWs, LGBTQ+ people and the disabled, amongst other groups? I’ve yet to hear a Nazi portmanteau that’s warranted. If people insist on using ‘Nazi’ to elevate their feelings, they need to properly understand the weight that the term holds. We aren’t talking fake bra burning and homophones, we’re talking gas chambers and being killed in front of your family.

Even if someone is trying to convey a deep hatred towards a group of people, there’s just no practicality to doing it this way. Frankly, piggybacking on a completely unrelated term like ‘Nazi’ is cheap. If you’re going to slam a group for wanting equal rights or promoting proper grammar usage, at least use something that will match the wit that they’re trying to promote. That being said, it’s useless to create terms like these at all. Let’s be real, getting called a ‘grammarnazi’ isn’t going to prevent me from educating people on the proper form of there, their and they’re. It’s just going to make me more zealous about the topic at hand.

Rather than shutting down someone for their beliefs, why not start a dialogue with them? An even better option than immediately slamming someone for their beliefs is actually hearing what they have to say. Rather than shutting things down with a cheap insult, people can promote a more understanding society by actually attempting to understand the point-of-view of others.

The mass murder of millions of people isn’t something that should be trivialized by insensitive misuse. Almost everyone has heard stories by holocaust survivors about what they’ve had to go through. Even if someone’s ancestry wasn’t directly affected by the Nazi regime, they’ve heard the stories. They know about what happened. By using the word ‘Nazi’ to mean things that it doesn’t mean, people are making a joke of something that isn’t funny. The massacre of any group of people isn’t funny.

I’ve always been told to practice what you preach, so if you want to start a dialogue about this, email me.

Contact the author at zstrickland14@wou.edu

Office of the President guest column

By: Rex Fuller
President of Western Oregon University

Recently, my letter providing background on the higher education funding process appeared in the Western Journal. As a reminder, we are facing a budget shortfall and are considering three areas in which to make up the financial gap: raising tuition, cutting budgets and tapping one-time reserve funds. Today, I’d like to look ahead to what the changing funding landscape could mean for students.

We are committed to doing everything in our power to restrict tuition increases. There has been extensive conversation in an attempt to limit the rise this year, with groups such as the Board of Trustees and the Student Tuition Advisory Committee weighing in on the discussion.

Although the state budget for the next biennium likely won’t be decided until July, it appears the Legislature is unlikely to provide anything close to the funds we’ve requested. This means tuition will increase between 5 and 10 percent, which is an additional $8 to $16 per credit hour for students on the Traditional Plan. Currently enrolled students on the Tuition Promise plan are unaffected.

Another part of our plan to offset budget shortfalls is cutting costs across campus. I have asked all departments to propose reductions of 5 and 10 percent, and these suggestions will be presented to the University Budget Committee. I view this as an opportunity for all department heads to reassess their expenditures, staffing levels and course offerings. Throughout the process, our focus will remain on our shared goal: seeing our students obtain their degrees and become valuable members of their communities.

In addition to making budget cuts, tapping our one-time reserve funds for 2017-2018 enables us to keep tuition increases at or below 10 percent.
Because using reserves is not a long-term solution, by 2018-2019 we must develop a budget that is structurally balanced and that does not rely on the continued use of one-time reserves.

Although these measures are unfortunate, I believe adjustments can be made without compromising the mission and strategic initiatives outlined in our strategic plan. Western will always put student success first, no matter what challenges we face.

Again, I invite all of our students to get involved in the fight for more budget dollars from the state and against tuition increases. If you are an Oregon resident, please contact your legislative representative to voice your concerns.

Joining our voices can make a difference for Oregon higher education because together we succeed.

Contact the author at president@wou.edu

The one where everyone’s a garbage person

By: Stephanie Blair
Editor-in-Chief

In the ‘90s, “Friends” was the annoyingly unrealistic, yet lovable show; six friends living in huge apartments in New York City while barely working and sleeping around to their hearts’ content. Now, a different idealized delusion has overtaken television and I have to say, I hate it.

The image of entitled, lazy, dysfunctional “millennials” seems to have sprouted from the very shows that I can’t stand. Shows like “The Office,” “Broad City,” Workaholics” and Netflix’s “Love” glorify settling for less and just scraping by. I know that the grind of getting to where you want to be isn’t glamorous, but I would argue that carrying a Ziploc bag of weed in your vagina to avoid getting caught by the cops isn’t glamorous either.

Is it too much to ask for one show about 20-somethings whose lives haven’t devolved into a haze of sleeping around, abusing substances and spending more time complaining about working than actually working? I don’t like to use the word “hedonism,” but I’m left with few alternatives for the philosophy of these self-serving, and otherwise unmotivated underachievers.

Say what you will about the slew of ‘90s shows that have people living in a magical world where rent is no object and they can spend more time eating with friends than working, but at least those characters have jobs and move forward in their lives. “Sex in the City” has all four main characters doing jobs they love, in “Friends” the friends all achieve some degree of success in their professional life, even “Seinfeld.”… Well, I suppose it’s just Jerry who’s successful, but still.

It was a flaw of writing at the time, but frankly, I’m not interested in how the writers expect shows to be financially realistic – it’s television.

However, I can’t let go of my grudge against these new “woe is me” young adults that dominate screens across America. The problem has shifted from unrealistically nice settings to unrealistically awful people in fairly realistic settings. It’s no longer a question of financial logistics, it’s turning a blind eye to the reality of how easy is to be fired or get an STD. The often illegal, always morally questionable antics that characters get up to fill me with anxiety and disgust.

While I can appreciate wanting to escape into a fantasy world, I like connecting with the characters I’m watching. I like being invested in the lives of fictional characters. I cared exponentially more about Rory Gilmore getting into Harvard than I did about the pranks Jim pulled on Dwight every week.

I want a character to aspire to, to be excited for. If I wanted to spend an hour a night with unmotivated-alcoholic Gen Y kids, I’d move back to Portland’s suburbs.

Contact the author at sblair13@wou.edu

The artifice of artistry

Darien’s Column:
Author: Darien Campo | Designer

Deck: Are independent musicians putting too much focus on image before talent?

Everybody wants to act like Kanye, but nobody wants to work like Kanye.

These words have been bouncing around my head for almost a month now. I encountered the phrase on a Reddit thread started by an independent artist who was dissatisfied with the amount of attention his work was getting. He ranted, saying that he had worked hard for his craft and he deserved to have a larger fanbase by now – but nobody was listening to his tracks. A couple of users, myself included, tried to engage in conversation with him and have a discussion, only to be met with more anger and sarcasm. He didn’t want excuses, he didn’t want advice, and he didn’t want strategies; he wanted results.

This attitude is so prevalent in the independent scene.

As a musician, I’ve dealt with countless bands and artists who are just starting out but never get past this hump. We see online are bands who rocket into stardom and are showered with fans from day one. What we don’t see are the years of work that go into being a musician – or any kind of artist, for that matter.

There’s an attitude of entitlement that so many independent artists develop. This idea that “I am a musician, therefore I deserve attention for my craft.” If this is your outlook, you’ll never get far as an artist. Being a musician is hard work, it’s exhausting, it’s unrelenting, and it’s unforgiving. You have to do it because you love it, even if nobody’s listening.

I produced for a band some years ago who developed their rockstar attitudes long before they ever developed their musical talent. They would say, “we need the right equipment,” “we need top-of-the-line recording software,” “we need more Facebook likes,” before they would ever worry about their actual music. Being a band was an image for them, and that was satisfactory enough. They never felt the need to delve any deeper into their musical voice.

This artifice of artistry is what holds so many independent musicians back from discovering their true potential as a creator. It’s easy to act like Kanye, so many artists do, but it’s much harder to put in the amount of time and effort that Kanye does. That’s why Kanye gets to act the way he acts; because he works harder than you could ever imagine.

Contact the author at dcampo13@wou.edu

Ashton’s Column:
Author: Ashton Newton | Entertainment Editor

Deck: The media and the entertainment industry have had a negative effect on the stereotype of the musician.

Everybody wants to act like Kanye, but nobody wants to work like Kanye.

The entertainment industry tends to idolize Kanye and other artists for their arrogance and extravagance, without noting the hard work that they put in. This affects how people view musicians in general, and it’s making negative marks on the music industry and the mindset around it.

Movies and television often show musicians as being super cool, rebellious and very arrogant. Kids shows such as “Drake and Josh” and “Big Time Rush” showed kids that looking and being cool as a musician is more important than the music you create, which has helped to create an expectation as to how musicians are supposed to act.

I’ve seen this in local musicians, in interviews and in the behavior of popular musicians. One notable example was when Green Day’s Billie Joe Armstrong freaked out at the iHeartRadio Music Festival due to wanting more time to perform. Jack White also got angry at the crowd when they weren’t cheering enough and he walked out of a sold out show after 45 minutes.

This behavior doesn’t help the stereotype, and it’s bleeding down into the local music scene, too. While talking to and interviewing artists, many people want to skip over the concept of working hard and jump straight into the idea of being the arrogant, super cool musician, even when they don’t have fans.

No one is going to want to work with an artist who is difficult to be around, much less someone who can’t get over the arrogant mindset. No one is going to act like a jerk, win a battle of the bands and then get instant stardom. That’s the plot of “School of Rock,” and it’s time to get your head out of the clouds and act like a good person first and foremost.

Ending this “rockstar” stereotype in movies and television, not romanticizing performers who are obvious arrogant jerks and working hard rather than instantly acting like a celebrity are so important for the music industry and the mindsets surrounding it.

Labeling yourself as a musician gives you nothing. Putting in the effort that someone like Kanye does is the side of the industry that so many artists are ignoring. Whether music is a passion or a hobby, acting like Kanye without working like Kanye won’t get anyone anywhere and continues to send the industry into a spiral of arrogance.

Contact the author at anewton15@wou.edu