Opinion – Page 8 – The Western Howl

Submitted by Erik Morgan Jr. | President Associated Students of Western Oregon University

To the WOU student body:

I’m writing to you to encourage each and every student to participate in the Incidental Fee Committee Open Hearing on Thursday, February 27th at 4pm in the Pacific Room, WUC. The IFC is charged by the ASWOU student government to allocate budgets for various WOU departments funded by mandatory fees paid by students attending WOU. Departments that are funded by incidental fees include, but are not limited to, Student Engagement, Campus Recreation, Abby’s House, and the ASWOU student government itself.

In a year, that has seen WOU’s enrollment decrease; now, more than ever, the IFC needs to hear from WOU students how they want their incidental fees to be spent. The IFC is faced with either making cuts to funded departments in order to keep the incidental fee lower or with raising the fee so that funded departments are able to keep providing their services to the WOU community. The incidental fee allocation process is a student-run, student-led process that functions more effectively when we all participate.

Unfortunately, those who should not be participating have been affecting the process. WOU institutional president Rex Fuller has announced that he intends to reject any IFC proposal that would raise the incidental fee over 5% of last year’s fee. The institutional president made this decision far in advance of the IFC even forming, much less waiting for any student deliberations to happen. This decision by President Fuller demonstrates a complete disregard for the departments funded by the incidental fee and is a direct challenge to the ability of WOU’s student body to allocate a fee that has its own best interests in mind. If President Fuller and the WOU Administration do not value the contributions that the student-fee-funded departments bring to the WOU community, then we need to show them that we do. In short, President Fuller’s premature decision to veto a 5% increase to the incidental fee is at best a political move in a non-political, student controlled process. At worst, it is an intentional attempt to intimidate the WOU student body into making a decision that benefits the administration more than it does the students.

Once again, I encourage every student to come to the next IFC Open Hearing on Thursday, February 27th at 4pm in the Pacific Room, WUC. The student voice should be what’s valued during the IFC process, not any others.

If you have any questions, please contact me via email at aswoupresident@mail.wou.edu or by phone at 503-838-8655.

In solidarity,

Erik Morgan Jr. President Associated Students of Western Oregon University

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in guest opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Western Howl.

The Western Howl

Home » Opinion

Guest opinion: WOUnews is still not news

Stephanie Blair | Western Oregon University Class of 2018

I recently received word from a current student that Western’s Marketing and Communications (MarCom) department has just launched “Today at WOU” and included in the subject line of this all-student email blast the words, “your news source.” It reminded me that the more things change, the more they stay the same. It’s an old adage, but it rings true on Western’s historic campus.

In October 2017, I was a senior attending Western and was serving as the editor-in-chief of what is now known as The Western Howl. That month I wrote an editorial titled “Newsflash: WOUnews is no news” which criticized Western Oregon’s Marketing and Communications (MarCom) department for peddling a publicity blog for the school as a news source for students.

I was frustrated, having worked for our independent student newspaper for all four years of my college career. I was proud of the work my staff was doing, the impact we were having and the awards we were bringing to Western but MarCom was making continual efforts to overshadow us for the sake of the university’s bottom line.

After that editorial was run, I had stirred the pot. The MarCom representative on our oversight board stepped down — though only to be replaced by another from that department. I was treated differently by some staff and many students who wrote for that blog. And, in hindsight, I can understand their perspective. Who was I to criticize them? They knew little to nothing about me, about the career I was building for myself.

But now, as a professional journalist who got her start in Western’s Student Media program, I would like to say again: public relations is not news, it’s propaganda.

The students who staff The Western Howl are accountable to journalistic ethics and their fellow students — they write about anything and everything that matters to the student body with no agenda but practicing the craft and bringing information to Western’s tuition-payers. MarCom’s job is to bring in money to the institution and increase enrollment — which also brings in all of that tuition. I would ask the students of Western to please consider which one of these is more likely to address problematic behavior by the administration, give a voice to students who are looked over by that same administration and most accurately represent Western to the world — for better or worse.

I am disappointed to see not only the disregard that MarCom has for the Howl, but its active efforts in replacing it with a sanitized money-grab. However, after all this time, I am still not surprised. This independent, student-run newspaper has been in existence for nearly a century — this is far from the first time something like this has happened.

It is up to the students to decide who they trust: their peers or the institution. I know who I will bet on every time.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in guest opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Western Howl.

The Western Howl

Home » Opinion

Letter to the Editor

Submitted by Dr. Rob Winningham

President Fuller has stated that WOU is committed to becoming the first four-year public university in Oregon to become a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI). After reading the thoughtful opinion piece that Mia Sierra wrote for the Western Howl, I thought it was a great opportunity to share some context around becoming an HSI and where WOU is on that path.

Colleges and universities need to have “25% or more Latino undergraduate full-time equivalent enrollment” before they can become a federally recognized HSI. There is a time-lag between the current enrollment and when it is reported to various agencies. But, at this moment, approximately 19% of our students identify as Hispanic. In addition, our Willamette Promise students, earning WOU credits while in high school, are also factored into our enrollment. We are waiting for final confirmation but WOU appears to be close to the 25% threshold.

However, we don’t just want to be a Hispanic enrolling institution but rather a Hispanic serving institution; in order to do that we need to create a space for campus community discussion and input. In pursuit of those goals, a steering committee representing students, staff and faculty have been preparing to host a summit entitled “Becoming a Hispanic Serving Institution: Together We Succeed,” on April 3 from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The goal of the summit is to provide an opportunity for the campus community to learn more about what it means to be an HSI and our current services, resources and support for our Latinx students. In addition, we are striving to create a platform for people to share ideas and give feedback so WOU can support all of our students, including Latinx students, in an effective and culturally sensitive manner. I hope you will consider participating in the Summit and adding your voice to the conversation.

Written and submitted by Dr. Rob Winningham, WOU’s Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in guest opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Western Howl.

The Western Howl

Home » Opinion

Opinion: An evaluation of hierarchies in relationships

Kay Bruley | Photo Editor

Valentine’s Day is here finally, and love is in the air. It’s not just one day really though; all month you will see pink and red decorating the world. For many though, it seems like all year, with romance feeling like a constant celebration surrounding American culture.

You’d have difficulty finding a storyline in any popular film, TV show or book that doesn’t feature a prominent romantic narrative. Children from a young age will interact with each other and adults will assume there must be some undertone of a crush. And don’t think of mentioning an event occurring with the opposite gender unless you’re prepared for the suggestive comments — double win for a romance-centered AND heteronormative society.

The result of such oversaturation of romance in media and real life is the current mindset of it being the most important thing to happen in a person’s life. You think of important milestones and what comes to mind is “find the love of your life, get married, have kids” — in that order. Young people are force fed this narrative and treat it as the highest priority, creating shame in virginity and lack of dating experience. You’ll often hear reluctance in admitting to being single and people in their 20s will frequently worry about being ‘off track’ on the schedule of life.

With all of this, what’s become of platonic relationships? Too often, friends are viewed as backup relationships, side characters or people you hang out with when you aren’t with a significant other — or don’t yet have one. Romance represented in the media and real life supports the unimportance of friendships, which is a cultural flaw. Have you ever been close with someone and then after they find a partner, you stop hanging out as much? Experiences like these only further the mindset of friends being second class relationships. It’s a cycle of culture supporting unfulfillment in platonic relationships, which leads people to undervalue them, which then makes them unfulfilling.

The prompt here is to re-evaluate your priorities when it comes to the relationships in your life. Maybe even redistribute the value you place on each of these relationships. Keep questioning why we think about these things the way we do. Why do we pity the 40 year old that’s single? Why do we insist that deep connections must be inherently romantic? Why do we believe friends can never be enough for someone to be happy?

Contact the author at mbruley19@mail.wou.edu

The Western Howl

Home » Opinion

Opinion: Soulmates, not what we think they are

Hannah Greene | Sports Editor

Soulmate: a person ideally suited to another as a close friend or romantic partner. Destiny, chance, meant to be, etc. Why do soulmates have to refer to a friend or someone we love? Why can’t this beautiful term represent a connection with anything that one may feel throughout their entire lives?

We are told that we have one true soulmate, that we have been connected to forever, that one day we will meet them and we will just know — this goes for our best friend and our significant other. But this is all so false; a soulmate can be anyone or anything that left a mark on our hearts and in our minds. A soulmate isn’t just a human, but can be an animal, a tune, a fragment of nature or just a natural connection to something way beyond our eyes.

In Australia, the word ‘mate’ is used as a form of endearment, to show someone platonic love or joy in their presence. The word is thrown around to everyone, it’s not used in the way of “mating” with someone, or the “mate” that is your significant other — it is in fact, just a mate.

Our souls live way beyond our bodies ever will, meaning the connections we will encounter will never truly end. Our souls truly see and are able to direct us to the connections we need, whether we can actually see it or not.

When I was little, I believed that I had one soulmate and that was who I was going to spend the rest of my life with… I was an idiot. Each year I have come across people, animals and moments, even if for the briefest moment, that have made an impact in my life that have bonded with my soul, leaving a little etch in my heart, causing it to grow more. Each passerby has shared my soul in a way that the next cannot. Each connection is never the same as the last, making each connection just as valuable as the last, even if I will never come across that person or thing again.

Let’s cherish the mates our souls have found, embrace the teachings they have shown us and seize the seconds they give.

Here’s to the many mates my soul has introduced me to — the ones I am no longer able to see or hold, and the ones I hope to see again.

Contact the author at hgreene18@wou.edu

The Western Howl

Home » Opinion

Opinion: Why abortions should only be left to the pregnant person

Hannah Greene | Sports Editor

Content Warning: This certain opinion piece covers the topics of terminating pregnancies and rape, as well as views that may be against religious parties or the ideology of our national government.

Why is it that the topic of pregnant people and their rights are always front and center in governmental policy or “rule-making?” History shows this has been a long battle with consistent changes, changes only benefiting the medical professionals, i.e. doctors, or government — never the pregnant person.

The criminalization of abortion has never actually put a hault to abortions, but actually made it more difficult for pregnant people to be able to have safe access to this human right. Before 1973, women — of privileged higher classes were able to get safe abortions from private medical professionals. This still did not put an end to back alley abortions — an abortion perfomed by a non-medical professional — or the mortality rate of pregant people.

By the time 1973, Roe vs. Wade, rolled around, pregnant people were able to seek out legal abortions. Unfortunately, this caused an uproar amongst people who thought they should have a say in the private lives of pregnant people and their bodies, bringing the issue to federal and state levels to take away funding towards abortions.

In 1976, the Hyde Amendment was passed, which allowed states to deny funding to low-income people who wanted an abortion — which was then revised to allow funding in cases of rape, incest or damage to the pregnant person’s health.

Fast forward to the year 2020, and we are still fighting for this right. The separation of church and state most definitely does not exist when it comes to the rights of women and those who are pregnant. Politicians with religious agendas continue to make decisions and pass laws on the basis of their beliefs and not the basis of humanity. They choose to take away this “god-given right” and on top of that, take away access to birth control… what the hell are we supposed to do?

We have a constitutional right to abortion, no matter the case — it is our fundamental right to health and being able to control when or if we want a child or not.

For too long now, our world has put the health of the fetus before the health of the pregnant person. In 38 states — including Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Texas and Utah — pregnant people have been charged with manslaughter due to giving birth to a stillborn or by losing the child due to an accident. It’s time to let the person who is pregnant decide.

Women need access to birth control, pregnant people need access to safe and legal abortions and the energy going towards ending these fundamental, human rights needs to stop.

Let’s all start minding our own business and accept the decisions made by other people, especially decisions that have no impact or effect in our own lives.

Planned Parenthood is a safe place for those seeking to terminate a pregnancy or confide in a medical professional, on your terms and without parental consent. There are currently 11 Planned Parenthoods in the state of Oregon, for more information follow the link: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-center/or

Contact the author at hgreene18@wou.edu

The Western Howl

Home » Opinion

Opinion: Representation in media matters

Caity Healy | Managing Editor

The other week, I was binge-watching the second season of Netflix’s “You.” Part way into the season, they introduced a d/Deaf/Hard-of-hearing character — it’s not obvious how he identifies, which is why I use both forms of the letter “D” as well as “hard-of-hearing” — as the late husband of a main character.

I could write a whole other piece about the way that the other characters addressed the d/Deaf character, but that’s not the point I’m making today; rather, I want to focus on how viewers addressed this character, and characters alike.

When I sat down to watch the episode, I had a friend with me. Afterwards, they said something along the lines of, “the problem with having so many d/Deaf characters is that it just isn’t realistic. It throws off the balance.” My reaction? That’s absolutely ridiculous.

To be clear, this isn’t the first time I’ve heard someone say something along these lines. I’ve heard it regarding disabled folks in TV/film, LGBTQ+ in TV/film and I’ve heard it about other minority or other-identifying groups. I’ve heard people say that it bothers them how unrealistic the “overrepresentation” is, and it leaves me with a few questions: is it really overrepresentation or throwing off the balance? Also, in most cases, does it really matter how “realistic” a film or TV show is? Finally, is it really the “accuracy” of the representation that bothers you, or is it internalized bias?

Let’s start with the question of whether it is or is not realistic. According to cdc.gov, 61 million adults in the U.S. have a disability — roughly 1 in 4. So, in order for media to be “accurate,” 1 in 4 characters would need to have a disability. Of course, not all disability is visible. But that’s what’s important — representing folks who identify with all different kinds of disabilities.

Now let’s answer question two: if realism is really important or not. Unless you’re watching a documentary, or watching a historically-based program, I would argue that it doesn’t matter. We can’t pick and choose when realism is important or not. If it doesn’t bother you that an impossible plot is occurring, it shouldn’t bother you that there is a larger number of minority characters, which brings me to my final point.

Self-reflection is an important practice. If you are bothered by something like this, you might want to ask yourself why. If you can’t whole-heartedly say that it is due to the fact that you find it unrealistic, then it probably has something to do with your internalized bias against folks who identify in ways that you might not. We all have our biases, and if you aren’t reflecting on them, you’ll only perpetuate them.

A change in perspective could do viewers a lot of good if they find themselves upset by this representation in media. The only way to normalize representing the underrepresented, is to simply give them screen time — played by actors who actually identify with their character’s identities. It’s time to become comfortable with the fact that these folks deserve the roles they’re earning. It’s time to realize that these characters are here to stay, and they’re just going to keep coming.

Contact the author at chealy16@wou.edu

Western Oregon University’s Land Acknowledgement
Western Oregon University in Monmouth, OR is located within the traditional homelands of the Luckiamute Band of Kalapuya. Following the Willamette Valley Treaty of 1855 (Kalapuya etc. Treaty), Kalapuya people were forcibly removed to reservations in Western Oregon. Today, living descendants of these people are a part of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians.

Accessibility Public Records Privacy Student Consumer Information

WOU prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national or ethnic origin, age, religion, marital status, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in all programs, activities and employment practices as required by Title IX, other applicable laws, and policies. Retaliation is prohibited by WOU.

Letter to the Editor

Guest opinion: WOUnews is still not news

Letter to the Editor

Opinion: An evaluation of hierarchies in relationships

Opinion: Soulmates, not what we think they are

Opinion: Why abortions should only be left to the pregnant person

Opinion: Representation in media matters

Tools

Resources