Mount Hood

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

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

Opinion: Is Western really going to become Hispanic-serving?

Mia Sierra  | Guest Writer

As a Hispanic student, more specifically a Mexican student, one way I like to be involved on campus is by attending M.E.C.H.A. meetings. M.E.C.H.A. — which stands for Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán — is a club that seeks to promote Chicano unity and empowerment at Western. In one meeting, the topic of Western becoming a Hispanic Serving Institute came up. This means that 25% or more of students attending Western identify as Hispanic, which will lead to the university getting more money. 

I was surprised when I heard that Western was planning to become Hispanic-serving. First, because I didn’t even think that there were any Hispanic Serving Institutes in the United States, and second, because seemingly no one has talked about it. 

I checked Western’s student racial demographics online. It shows that 60% are white, while Hispanic/Latino students make up about 15%. For a school to be eligible to become a Hispanic Serving Institute, the college or university must have 25% or more Hispanic students enrolled, said Gina Ann Garcia in her book  “Becoming Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Opportunities for Colleges and Universities.”

For Western to become Hispanic-serving, administration must find a way to increase Hispanic enrollment from 15% to 25%. In a speech I found online from Sep. 17, 2018 titled “President’s State of the University Address Rice Auditorium,” President Rex Fuller addresses Western’s goal to become a Hispanic Serving Institution. 

“As one of our objectives in this plan, WOU should embrace the goal of becoming a Hispanic Serving Institution. Once achieved, WOU would be the only four-year institution in Oregon with such a designation. To achieve this, we need to see Hispanic enrollment grow from 16% to 25% of total enrollment. Or, we need to grow from just under 800 to 1,200 Hispanic students,” Fuller said.

With the need of increasing Hispanic enrollment, I don’t think that Western will be able to achieve a 25% Hispanic student population. The reason I believe this is because during M.E.C.H.A. meetings, many of the students expressed how they don’t feel represented here at Western. They feel that Western lacks the resources for representation and aid for Hispanic/Latino students. This may cause Hispanic students to transfer to a different university and deter future students from attending Western.   

Although Fuller talks about the goal for Western to become a Hispanic Serving Institute, I noticed that he doesn’t talk about how Western plans to increase Hispanic enrollment, he just talks about what needs to happen. With no plan of action, is Western Oregon University really going to be a Hispanic Serving Institute?

 

Contact the author at mcelest01@gmail.com

Guest Opinion : Thinking honestly about waste at western

Nicholas Prazniak  | Guest Contributor

Let us for a minute assume that the world is perfect. No poverty, no war, no hate. This could be the truth, but greed has led us down the other path. It seems no matter what we do, we are living in an ever faster dying world. It is a crime to the planet we have committed — the guilt we must face — and the honesty we must accept of ourselves. We have become the last generation. More people, more problems. How to live with this has become the task we are all working on. It is not impossible, as nothing is, but it is very hard. 

Look at this planet: garbage has reached the deepest part of the ocean, our atmosphere is choked by smog, diesel fumes and pure ignorance for the air that keeps us alive. I write this in response to the waste that I see produced by this institution on a daily basis. There is definitely something we can do, but we have resorted to focus on distractions rather than this problem. 

We let the dumpsters fill up without any regard; we don’t look for a second chance at the things thrown away. I crawl through the dumpsters at the end of every year and find car loads of unused journals, unopened ramen packs, laptops, printers, chairs, laundry baskets and textbooks. It scares me that I find textbooks. We are literally throwing away knowledge that we have paid thousands of dollars for. 

I have formed the basis for this opinion piece by finding these physical things. There is no explanation for this wasteful habit except for the one and only reason that we are lazy. I have asked what solution there is to this and the scripted answer I get is “we are finding a solution.”

I’m shocked that for a school that has been around for so long, we have not found a solution for this problem, and instead turned our backs on it. We are wasting knowledge.  

 

Contact the author at nprazniak17@mail.wou.edu

 

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.

Consider your own approach before cutting someone out of your life due to their “toxic” behaviors.

Sage Kiernan-Sherrow  | News Editor

New Year’s resolutions are a common trend in U.S. culture, and one of the more common resolutions I see is to “cut out” or avoid negativity and “toxic behavior.” While I believe that most people who have this as their resolution or general goal for their future don’t take it to the extreme, I find that the words “toxic” or “negative” are both conflated and overused as descriptors. Furthermore, that people would rather brand relationships or instances as one of the above instead of recognizing their own responsibility in a given situation or relationship is alarming to me. Wouldn’t people rather use their communicative skills to understand one another and mediate before cutting people out of their lives? 

I would like to be clear about some things right off the bat. One, I am in no way addressing abusive relationships in this article; I am not an expert and while all abusive relationships are inherently toxic, not all toxic behaviors make someone abusive. Secondly, of course I believe that people can be toxic. Everyone has the ability to be toxic — and that’s something that we should recognize about ourselves. Everyone also has their own perspectives; what is your reality is not another’s and you might very well be the villain in someone else’s story. And yes, I believe that you can get to a certain point where having an individual in your life is no longer healthy or productive. 

However, as I was researching this topic, I became increasingly aware that there is no specific definition of “toxic behavior,” yet there is a myriad of examples of that behavior — and I think that lends itself to some of the confusion. 

Let’s imagine some scenarios for a moment. There is a difference between a friend who constantly puts you down and makes you feel insecure and a friend who can’t support you during your big presentation because they have other obligations. I’ve seen the latter framed as “toxicity” more than once when of course, it isn’t, and even regarding the former, wouldn’t you rather sit that friend down and discuss your feelings before dropping them or ghosting them? I think there is a shard of hypocrisy in calling something toxic in order to avoid growth and it’s awfully convenient that you’ve removed your own responsibility in what could have been a shared misunderstanding. 

I believe that someone should have the chance to explain themselves in most scenarios. I also believe that it’s your choice whether or not to listen to their explanation. But maybe that friend you just labeled toxic isn’t aware of their behavior, or maybe they’re having a bad day, and maybe given a chance to change, they would. 

I think that’s the biggest tell-all for if you can truly address someone as “toxic” — did they change their behavior? Remember, change takes time — it doesn’t happen overnight and it’s dependent upon reflection. 

I’m not telling you how to feel, because everyone’s feelings are valid — I’m telling you to look at yourself and the situation holistically first. Maybe what would help your growth more isn’t avoidance and ostracization of the things that harmed you; maybe it takes vulnerability and effort to bloom.

 

Contact the author at howlnews@wou.edu

Opinion: Why “The Mandalorian” could save “Star Wars”

Sean Martinez  | Copy Editor

So, I’m a huge “Star Wars” fan — and yes, I will even defend the infamous prequel and sequel trilogy — but I can still empathize with the people who are bothered by them. And after Rian Johnson’s “The Last Jedi” essentially rendered the fanbase divided, it seems as if most people have hopped off the Star Wars bandwagon and climbed aboard the Marvel Cinematic Universe express.

However, Disney+, the new streaming service for all things Disney, has just provided “Star Wars” fans with an original series that just might restore fans’ faith in the franchise: “The Mandalorian.”

Rest assured, there will be no major spoilers for “The Mandalorian.” 

The show takes place inbetween episodes six and seven, and follows a bounty hunter — the same race as Boba Fett — as he attempts to retrieve an incredibly valuable bounty. But he becomes a wanted man as every bounty hunter is after the same prize. What’s interesting about the Mandalorian is that he has a reputation to fulfill, but he also has a complicated and complex moral code. 

Now, we’ve only seen the first three episodes of “The Mandalorian,” but each episode keeps us pondering over what will happen next. One of the great things about this show is that it cleverly alludes to the main “Star Wars” films, without overdoing it. 

Just one of the many problems I have with the new trilogy is that it tries too hard to call back to the originals. When they force (no pun intended) connections from the original trilogy into the sequels, it makes the universe smaller than it can be. For instance, Rey’s parents don’t have to be characters we’ve already met. 

But in “The Mandalorian,” the references are subtle and don’t overstay their welcome. They appear on-screen for a few seconds before the attention shifts back to the actual story. 

One of the biggest mysteries in the franchise is actually essential to the story. It remains a constant plot point that drives the series. So, not only does this show allude to previous films, it also expands the universe. 

The other relieving aspect of the Disney+ series is the absence of “Disney-forced comedy.” It’s very apparent that the newer films have a significant amount of jokes and one-liners. It feels very Disney, if that makes sense. Watching “The Mandalorian,” however, does not feel like Disney material; there aren’t a lot of cheesy jokes throughout the series — and that’s a good thing. It genuinely feels like the director, Jon Favreau, takes the matter seriously. 

So if you haven’t yet seen or refused to watch “The Mandalorian,” I implore you to give it a chance. The “Star Wars” franchise can be so much more than just adding onto the Skywalker saga; there’s so many other characters to explore, places to see and stories to tell. There’s so much of this universe we haven’t even uncovered yet. This show can be the turning point in the future of “Star Wars” media. And hopefully, the passionate “Star Wars” fans will be given ‘a new hope’ before they watch the last installment of the current-day trilogy, “The Rise of Skywalker.”

 

Contact the author at smartinez17@wou.edu

Photo courtesy of Starwars.com

Opinion: In response to “It’s beginning to look a lot like Thanksgiving”

Caity Healy  |  Managing Editor

I’d like to preface this by saying, yes, I am listening to Christmas music as I write this. But also, I’m looking at the Thanksgiving decorations up around my house, too. Because holiday mixing is a thing, folks. With that, let’s jump into this response.

In Issue 7, my editor-in-chief published an opinion piece titled “It’s beginning to look a lot like Thanksgiving,” where she asserted that we should not jump straight from Halloween to Christmas, bypassing Thanksgiving. Let me say, the author is a wonderful and kind person, and I have the utmost respect for her and her opinions. That said — sorry Cora, I’ve got to disagree. Well, kind of.

Look, I love Thanksgiving. When I think of the holiday, I remember my childhood; I remember the tradition of my dad putting Christmas lights up on Thanksgiving morning so that it would be ready by the time guests arrived for dinner. I remember Christmas music playing through the house as the aroma of my mom’s cooking flooded our home. I remember getting up early to turn on the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, watching with twinkling eyes as Santa waved to the crowd in his float.

Thanksgiving is what you make it. To my family, it was never a day completely separate from Christmas. My childhood memories of the two holidays blur together — and I love that. I love the warmth of celebrating both holidays at once; I love letting spirits ring for as long as possible.

Aside from my anecdotal experience, studies show that putting holiday decorations up early can actually make people happier. Psychoanalyst Steve McKeown told Unilad that “In a world full of stress and anxiety, people like to associate two things that make them happy and Christmas decorations evoke those strong feelings of childhood.” 

Now, I do have some issues with this — it’s not always the feeling of childhood that people love, and the holiday isn’t always Christmas — but he gets the point. People often associate this time of year with happy memories or feelings, so let them. His statement has been confirmed by other scientists, such as psychologist Deborah Serani.

Overall, I get what Cora’s piece was saying. I just think it should be tweaked a little. My opinion is simply let people celebrate what makes them happy. If you prefer going all out for Thanksgiving, do it. If you prefer treating Thanksgiving as a pregame to the holidays, you do you. In a time when there’s limited opportunities to take time and do what actually makes you happy, I think we should let people take advantage of this opportunity. Let people celebrate holidays in a way that truly makes them happy.

 

Contact the author at chealy16@wou.edu

Western Oregon University

Facebook   Instagram   X  YouTube

WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY
345 Monmouth Ave. N.
Monmouth OR 97361

503-838-8000 | 1-877-877-1593

Tools

Campus Maps
Canvas
Find People
Portal
WOU Email
Technical Support

Resources

A-Z Index
Accessibility
Academic Calendar
Class Schedule
Jobs at WOU
News
Explore WOU
Partnerships
Student Services
Freedom of Expression

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.