Mount Hood

Black Friday

By: Conner Williams 
Editor-in-Chief

Oregon law does not require that overtime pay be provided for individuals that work on Thanksgiving Day, according to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

The discretion is left up to the business of whether or not to provide overtime pay for employees on national holidays.

And since many businesses begin their Black Friday promotional sales early on Thursday, this means that employees are working on Thanksgiving instead of being home with their families.
The bottom line is that if employees are going to be forced to work on a national holiday, they should be compensated additionally.

In Oregon, the rate of overtime pay is one and a half times the base rate of pay, but let’s take it one step further and say that employees working on national holidays should be paid twice their rate of pay.

Now, you may be wondering, “But if people could make twice as much money, wouldn’t they rather go to work instead?”

Not necessarily.

First, let’s assume a scenario in which an individual has a choice to work on a holiday or not. It then becomes a matter of personal preferences.

Economic theory says that people whom make higher wages already are more likely to stay home rather than work for increased wages, since they already make a lot of money in the first place.

That temporary increase in wages from the holiday pay will not affect their overall income as much as it would a person with a lower income.

In contrast, a person with a lower income is more likely to want to go to work if they will receive a higher rate of pay, because it actually got more expensive for them to stay home.

Think of it this way: an individual makes $10 an hour, and they can then make $20 an hour if they work on a holiday. That means that every hour they don’t work loses them $20 instead of $10, so they will be more likely to want to go to work since they already have a low rate of pay.

Dr. John Leadley, an economics professor at WOU, reiterated this notion.

“Sure, somebody might say ‘I’ll work on Thanksgiving and make more money, then [my family and I] will celebrate it another day,’ but it still comes down to preferences,” Leadley said.

But again, this is assuming that someone has the choice of working or not. Many people are forced to work on holidays for their base rate of pay or else they will lose their jobs.

This needs to change.

Politics in the classroom

This editorial is not in response to the teaching practices of any professor at WOU. Since we are nearing a Presidential election, The Journal’s Editorial Team felt it was necessary to address the topic of politics and opinions in the classroom

It is inevitable that one’s own personal beliefs about a subject will come into play during a conversation, even if it happens subconsciously.

We are affected and influenced by our own biases whether we like it or not. The challenge then becomes how we control them in an academic setting, where a neutral stance is best for optimum learning.

In the ideal classroom, students should be exposed to the facts, and then exposed to the techniques to be able to decide for themselves what sort of personal conclusions they wish to draw from them, rather than have a professor tell them what they should or should not believe without explanation of the procedure by which that conclusion was reached.

Now, take into account a professor’s’ opinions in the classroom. Although not facts, it’s important to know that when an opinion is presented, it should always be taken as such. Opinions are merely a piece of information that can be used to expand on a student’s understanding of a subject, but not as something to sway them in a particular direction of correct or incorrect.

The line where opinions and politics blend together in the classroom is tricky. Teachers should be welcome to give students the unbiased facts on candidates, policies, et cetera that lead to a health conversation between students and professors. But it’s important to avoid creating situations where a professor tries to purposely lead students to side with their own political stance.

When a person in power, like a college professor, takes their power and encourages students to believe a certain political opinion, it takes away the student’s right to decide for him or herself.

A classroom is a place to learn, not to be preached at. It’s important for the people facilitating our learning to consider all the different opinions on a subject fairly.

This is why it is so important that the classroom remains a safe setting for opinions, conversation, and debate. In order for students to gain the maximum amount of information from multiple sources and points of view, they must be exposed to different elements. If a professor wishes to share something from a liberal-oriented news source, it would behoove them to also examine a conservative-oriented source.

Students and professors should be welcomed to express opinions, as long as they are willing to hear and understand the opposite point of view. Keeping a classroom safe and neutral is important. Allowing students to be in a place where varied beliefs are welcomed, without the authoritative voice of “you should believe this,” or “you should believe that.”

Most liberally-oriented people aren’t going to watch The O’Reilly Factor for their political commentary, just as most conservatively-oriented individuals probably aren’t going to tune into The Daily Show for theirs. People tend to seek out information that is going to reinforce what they already believe; they don’t want to hear opinions that conflict with their own. So, it is important to examine multiple viewpoints with different underlying ideologies. It may also be beneficial to view news from neutral sources that are not owned by a politically-affiliated parent corporation, such as Reuters, BBC, or The Real News.

A.L.I.C.E. training throws it all out the window

8XYMJF

By: Conner Williams 
Editor-in-Chief

I like to think that if I were in a situation in which a person wanted to do me bodily harm, my animal brain would take over and I would fight back or run.

In the face of danger, our innate instincts tell us to stand and fight or flee.

We can never really know what type of reaction we will have until that situation happens, and of course I hope that neither I, nor any of you ever have to find out exactly what you would do.

However, A.L.I.C.E. (Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate) training teaches people to do just that: trust their instincts in emergency situations.

We have been taught for years that in an active shooter situation, we are supposed to lockdown and hide.

This method has shown to be extremely ineffective over the years, as we have seen that in the large majority of school shootings, those that hide are the ones that get killed.

Part of the A.L.I.C.E. training I attended on Wednesday, Nov. 11 had the audience listen to a 911 call from the Columbine High School shooting.

A teacher at Columbine, Patti Nielson, had hid in the library with some students and had told her students to stay down and hide under the desks. She called 911 and did everything she possibly could to follow her training.

But that was just the problem: her formal training directly contributed to the loss of lives.

During the call, Nielson could be heard telling students to get back under the desks, meaning that they were trying to get up to run and she directed them to stay down.

That is a problem. Those kids’ survival instincts told them to get out of there, but they were told to stay by a person of authority.
But, does the fault really lie on Nielson? Of course not.

She was simply doing exactly what she was trained to do, and she conducted herself perfectly under extremely stressful circumstances.

The really terrible thing is that there were doors all along the back wall of the library that they could have fled out of, but their training told them to stay put and wait for the police.

We need to break away from the traditional lockdown and hide protocol and learn to trust our instincts.

Running away is the best option. Human beings were built to run quickly in long distances; trust yourself and get out as fast as possible in the face of danger.

I generally don’t endorse violence, but in a life-or-death situation with an active shooting/killer, you must do absolutely anything to survive.

Officer Trevor Jackson of Campus Public Safety presented the training session, telling us to use any and everything at our disposal to distract and otherwise disorient the shooter/killer.

Throw your phone at them at then run the other direction. Any sort of disorientation will throw off the shooter’s plan and buy you precious seconds to get away, even mere seconds are crucial.

I sincerely hope that none of us has to find out how finely tuned our survival instincts truly area, but we need to be prepared for the worst.

Always trust your instincts, and do everything you can to get away from the situation.
I highly recommend that you participate in an A.L.I.C.E. training on campus. Upcoming dates can be found on the CPS webpage.

Musings from a woman on the edge

KatrinaColor

By: Katrina Penaflor 
Managing Editor

Drop your pitchforks made out of red Starbucks cups and find a real problem to complain about.

The controversy over Starbucks’ holiday cups is seriously getting out of control.

The argument spurring all this is that the cups, being an ombre of red, are not “holiday enough” and are somehow a war against Christianity in their minimalist approach of decorations and lack of “Merry Christmas.”

Please, overly-opinionated coffee drinkers of the world and self-proclaimed argument starters, stop centering a holiday around a cup that holds coffee.

This controversy is about something that is literally getting tossed into the trash when it’s done being used.
This is why I’m just not understanding all the hate.

So there are no snowflakes printed on it, or there isn’t a “Merry Christmas” sprawled across the cup in beautiful cursive script. I guess that means Christmas is ruined forever.

There’s no hope for any holiday spirit because my cup of coffee was served in a plain red cup.

Will the next debate be against a coffee shop that doesn’t have holiday cups at all? Quick, everyone go boycott a café who uses the same cups all year and clearly lacks holiday spirt.

I don’t care if my coffee cup has holiday pictures printed on it, or if the colors don’t fit the traditional holiday mold of what Christmas cheer should look like.

A coffee cup does not define a religion. A coffee cup does not define holiday spirit.

I don’t believe for one second that Starbucks created these cups as some war on Christianity or to eliminate holiday cheer.

People need to settle down and stop trying to create a problem out of something that’s a non-issue.

So if anyone wants to complain about getting handed a red holiday cup from Starbucks, please take at least five minutes to reassess your life, and be grateful that you can even afford the luxury of having a cup of coffee.

Never say die

By: Katrina Penaflor 
Managing Editor

What to do when you have thousands of movie fans swarming your property begging to see inside your house and get a tour? Block off all the windows with blue tarp.

Or at least that’s what the owner of the legendary Goonies’ house has done.

The house sits in Astoria, Ore., the filming location of the 1985 cult classic “The Goonies.”

The movie is a personal childhood favorite of mine. I recall watching the movie as a kid while chanting the famous phrase “Goonies never say die.”

But unfortunately, the home from the film, and its access for tours and visitors, has taken its last breath.

Over the summer, the owner of the home officially closed the doors for good. Blocking up windows with blue tarps and denying all access to the property.

The sudden closure came from an influx of visitors, nearly a thousand every day, knocking on doors, entering the property, and trying to get a taste of their childhood nostalgia.

It was also the result of the lack of respect show by visitors to the house, many of whom left beer cans and other trash all over the place.

I can understand the owner’s frustrations.

To deal with endless crowds of people every day would feel invasive and exhausting. How could a person wanting to live their normal, day-to-day life keep up?

I also can see the argument behind people who want to view the house and say things like, “the owner chooses to live in the Goonies house, she should welcome visitors!”

However, for the most part she has for years. It’s not that the owner isn’t welcoming, it’s a simple question of how much one person can handle when it comes to crowds of people wanting into their home.

If it were me, I would want to support visitors, but there would have to be consideration for my own privacy and a way to monitor the visitor’s safety, as well as my own.

I think if people want hope for the visitation rights to potentially return in the future, the owner of the house needs to receive support from the city, as well as more respect for her privacy, and acknowledgement that it is a functioning house in addition to being a landmark.

So far, the extent of what the city has done is put up signs indicating private property, and notifications that the Goonies house is closed. There has also been discussion of making the road to the owner’s house, which at the moment is public property, private.

Sure, people can question why this should become the city’s issue, but think about how much of an attraction the Goonies house is. This can be beneficial to Astoria. Thousands of people travel to the Oregon coastal town just to get a look at where the movie was made.

If the city helps to keep visitors away by eliminating all signs that lead to the Goonies house, because there are still quite a few official signs scattered across the town, and they help mark her road as private, maybe this will ease the frustration of the owner.

This could potentially lead to the return of more monitored visits in the future, potentially.

There’s really no way to tell what the future holds, but for now, I think the privacy of the owner needs to be respected.

She welcomed visits in the past, and we can only hope that the option will return in the future.

Never say die.

Off my mind

BenColor

By: Ben Bergerson 
Designer

I’m known around the office as the Timbers fan. And there aren’t many of us in the world of American sports fans. Most of the time I wish more people watched soccer, just so that people could feel the excitement that surrounds the sport during the post-season.

These matches aren’t just thrilling for someone “in the know” with soccer; anyone who watches will find themselves wrapped up in the drama and excitement too.

Take, for example, the Portland Timbers’ road to the playoffs.

The Timbers had come off a long stretch where they just couldn’t score a goal. They were creating chances and were one of the best teams in the league defensively, but they couldn’t convert those chances into actual goals.

The Timbers went into the last three games needing to win and draw at least one each in order to get into the playoffs.

Many in the press said that the Timbers’ goal draught was going to see them miss the playoffs, especially with matches against tough teams like Real Salt Lake and the LA Galaxy.

Then something crazy happened.

Timbers Coach Caleb Porter made one adjustment, and like a breached dam, the goals came flooding in.

On Oct. 18, facing an away game at LA Galaxy, Porter moved Darlington Nagbe up out of the central midfielder role. This allowed him to run the ball deep and combine with other forward moving players, including Fanendo Adi, Diego Chara, and stiker Maxi Urruti.

That night, the Timbers destroyed the reigning MLS Cup champions 5-2, and they have gone on to win every match since, including an insane knockout match versus Sporting Kansas City.

The soccer of the last few weeks would make a fan out of anybody that watched.

I’d argue that the Timbers have a really good chance at making it to the MLS Cup match this year, so when the next match starts on Nov. 22, come join the crazed throngs of fans and find out what soccer’s about.

In the meantime, don’t drown this weekend if you head out of town, it’s supposed to be the end of the world by flood or something.

A letter from your legislators

By: U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

The following is an open letter written by Oregon Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) concerning their recent education finance bill. The views contained are not necessarily endorsed by the Journal

 

Last month, on campuses across Oregon, students told us that college debt is suffocating opportunity. It’s preventing a move, a job, a car or a house. Debt is stifling ideas for the future before they have a chance to grow. Those students implored us to find real solutions to cut tuition costs and prevent the crushing debt that follows too many college graduates for decades.

In Oregon, the average student graduating with debt owes more than $25,000, and that number only keeps climbing. Nationally, with out-of-pocket tuition costs continuing to fly past inflation – by nearly 24 percent from 1999 to 2011 – students and their families face the brunt of this burden with no end in sight.

The key driver of tuition increases and skyrocketing debt levels is states dramatically cutting their share of funding for public higher education. In fact, researchers at Demos, a policy research organization, found that declining state support was responsible for nearly 80 percent of the rise in tuition costs between 2001 and 2011.

That has certainly been the case in Oregon, where the state’s contribution to the per-student cost of public college has fallen from $5,587 in 2009 to $4,214 in 2014 – a decline of almost 25% in just five years. In the last state legislative session, the state increased higher education funding by almost 20 percent, which is great progress. However, Oregon ranked 45th in the nation in per-student support for public higher education in 2014.

That’s why we introduced legislation to encourage states to put in a bigger share and reinvest their dollars into public colleges and universities. Our bill, the PARTNERSHIPS Act, would provide federal matching funds for states that agree to freeze or reduce the cost of tuition and bring up graduation rates. The bill signals to states and colleges that the federal government wants to be a partner in making college more affordable.

The partnership would work like this: The federal government would send dollars to states if states use those dollars to stop tuition costs from going up, or, better yet, if they use those dollars to bring down tuition costs at public colleges. Under our bill, a school could get up to $1,700 per student each year from the federal government if it meets those conditions.

Even as we work to stop tuition from climbing higher, we know costs are already so high that many feel college is out of reach. So another key piece of the puzzle is ensuring that all kids – starting in junior high and high school – know that they will have the ability to repay their loans.

In August, we introduced the AFFORD Act, which would give all borrowers that peace of mind. Our bill would make student debt more manageable by ensuring no borrower has to pay more than ten percent of his or her discretionary income on student loan payments. Any unpaid balance after 20 years would be forgiven. Everybody, from baristas to bankers, would be able to afford their student loan payments.

In our country, a higher education is often the ticket to a good-paying job. Making college affordable is not only critical to the future of students, it’s vital for our state. It’s the surest way to grow our economy and the incomes of ordinary Oregonians. We must keep higher education – a central pathway to the middle class – open to all.

Bringing down college costs is going to take effort from students, states and the federal government. But Oregonians have never been afraid of hard work. Our students’ future and our state’s require that we meet this challenge. Working in partnership, we can keep the doors to opportunity open to all Oregonians.

Last month, on campuses across Oregon, students told us that college debt is suffocating opportunity. It’s preventing a move, a job, a car or a house. Debt is stifling ideas for the future before they have a chance to grow. Those students implored us to find real solutions to cut tuition costs and prevent the crushing debt that follows too many college graduates for decades.

In Oregon, the average student graduating with debt owes more than $25,000, and that number only keeps climbing. Nationally, with out-of-pocket tuition costs continuing to fly past inflation – by nearly 24 percent from 1999 to 2011 – students and their families face the brunt of this burden with no end in sight.

The key driver of tuition increases and skyrocketing debt levels is states dramatically cutting their share of funding for public higher education. In fact, researchers at Demos, a policy research organization, found that declining state support was responsible for nearly 80 percent of the rise in tuition costs between 2001 and 2011.

That has certainly been the case in Oregon, where the state’s contribution to the per-student cost of public college has fallen from $5,587 in 2009 to $4,214 in 2014 – a decline of almost 25% in just five years. In the last state legislative session, the state increased higher education funding by almost 20 percent, which is great progress. However, Oregon ranked 45th in the nation in per-student support for public higher education in 2014.

That’s why we introduced legislation to encourage states to put in a bigger share and reinvest their dollars into public colleges and universities. Our bill, the PARTNERSHIPS Act, would provide federal matching funds for states that agree to freeze or reduce the cost of tuition and bring up graduation rates. The bill signals to states and colleges that the federal government wants to be a partner in making college more affordable.

The partnership would work like this: The federal government would send dollars to states if states use those dollars to stop tuition costs from going up, or, better yet, if they use those dollars to bring down tuition costs at public colleges. Under our bill, a school could get up to $1,700 per student each year from the federal government if it meets those conditions.

Even as we work to stop tuition from climbing higher, we know costs are already so high that many feel college is out of reach. So another key piece of the puzzle is ensuring that all kids – starting in junior high and high school – know that they will have the ability to repay their loans.

In August, we introduced the AFFORD Act, which would give all borrowers that peace of mind. Our bill would make student debt more manageable by ensuring no borrower has to pay more than ten percent of his or her discretionary income on student loan payments. Any unpaid balance after 20 years would be forgiven. Everybody, from baristas to bankers, would be able to afford their student loan payments.

In our country, a higher education is often the ticket to a good-paying job. Making college affordable is not only critical to the future of students, it’s vital for our state. It’s the surest way to grow our economy and the incomes of ordinary Oregonians. We must keep higher education – a central pathway to the middle class – open to all.

Bringing down college costs is going to take effort from students, states and the federal government. But Oregonians have never been afraid of hard work. Our students’ future and our state’s require that we meet this challenge. Working in partnership, we can keep the doors to opportunity open to all Oregonians.