3
Monday Jan. 25, 2010 www.newsrecord.org
college living uc life and those living it
BREAD
&BUTTER emily lang
Campaign funding will change food industry functions
Corporate campaign contributions: It’s what’s for dinner. In the midst of one of the most ambitious (and contentious) attempts at massive government reform our nation has ever seen, the Supreme Court has seemingly dished up a devastating blow for any sort of it, including (but not limited to) “food reform.” Last week’s litigious 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision to repeal century-old campaign finance restrictions — which banned corporate funding of political campaigns — has stunned, infuriated and disheartened Americans, advocates of agricultural reform and the president alike. But what exactly do campaign finance restrictions (or rather the new lack thereof) have to do with what we eat? Absolutely everything. “With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,” President Barack Obama said in a statement last Thursday. “It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” Let me just humbly insert under the “other powerful interests” category, those of big Agribusiness. Which, as an industry plagued with the practices of factory farming and agricultural subsidies — while poor regulation continues to result in rampant food borne illness and a nearly immeasurable environmental impact — currently has quite the image to manage. And in an ever increasingly food aware, environmentally conscious world, it’s more important than ever for big Agribusiness to manage government expectation through lobbyists or face major regulatory backlash. But luckily for them, it would appear that the Supreme Court has now made it easier than ever to “buy a congressman.” Advocates of the industry’s reform, foodies and activists have banded together in recent years to champion the slow food, organic and eat local movements as grassroots efforts to try to force the industry to adopt better policies. In hopes that consumer demand for greener, healthier options and alternatives when it comes to what we eat, would garner the attention of the industry and regulators, as well as politicians. But as food policy expert Marion Nestle points out, “When corporations fund campaigns, representatives make decisions in the corporate interest. It’s that simple.” Nestle, the author of several food policy books, including “Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health,” lamented on her Blog Friday that for those who, “care about creating a good, clean, fair and sustainable food system,” it’s going to be a lot harder now. The already unfair fight between animal, farmer, food-safety and consumer rights activists verses a multi-billion dollar industry just became an even taller order. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy called the ruling a defense of the First Amendment and wrote for the majority, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” But in subscribing to this school of thinking the Supreme Court seems to blatantly disregard the implications for purely profit-driven corporations to be written off as “benign ‘associations of citizens’ who should be allowed to do with their money (millions of dollars) as they please.” And fails to acknowledge that billion-dollar big business, such as Tyson and ConAgra, wield more game-changing heft than the average politically inclined knitting circle. Allowing industry to flood the political forum with their form of “green encouragement” shifts the power from the people and into the hands of faceless conglomerates and their CEOs, promoting the same mismanagement (or complete lack thereof) that led to the bank collapse and financial crisis. What is seemingly lost on Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and the ruling majority of the Supreme Court is the real difference between average citizens and the multi-billion dollar corporations now free to plug whatever candidate will do the most to serve their bottom line: a conscience. This isn’t and shouldn’t be an issue of left verses right, it’s an issue of We The People verses We The Faceless Unaccountable Profit-Driven Corporations. While the Justices claim to be to strengthening the First Amendment, they’re actually circumventing its importance all together. Upon first glance it might not appear to directly slight the true average citizen’s free speech and that’s because it doesn’t; it simply increases the corporatefunded din, over which we will no longer be heard.
Obesity on campus issue for many Evan Wallis the news record
As the freshman 15 and other weight gain comes with the college experience, colleges and universities are taking steps against obesity, even preventing some overweight students from graduating. Lincoln University in Pennsylvania was one such university. Upon matriculation, students submitted to a physical, and if they had a Body Mass Index more than 30, they were obligated to take an exercise and fitness class to graduate. This requirement infuriated many students and alumni. Lincoln University eventually made the decision to drop the requirement after resistance from staff and students. With obesity being such a prevalent problem in society — 68 percent of adults are overweight, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — those in power are starting to
question whose goal it is to prepare students for a successful future. One University of Cincinnati student agrees that a required fitness class might be a step in the right direction. “It would give students the opportunity to learn to exercise right and be aware of healthy eating habits,” said Justin Combs, a fourth-year pre-pharmacy student. “[Requiring every student to take a fitness class] is a good idea.” But requiring only obese students to take such a class would cause an uproar, Combs said. While students seem OK with the idea of a mandatory fitness class, one faculty member disagrees. “I have trouble with making things mandatory that we should be responsible for ourselves,” said Lora Arduser, an English and comparative literature
professor. “It would be a tough sell.” Students need to be aware of their choices, but the facilities to live a healthy lifestyle should be available to students, Arduser said. There was a backlash against administration when Lincoln University required the exercise and fitness class and it is fair to say the same could happen at UC. “I wouldn’t feel comfortable telling students they were required to take such a class,” said Doug Kennedy, assistant director of exploratory studies. Living a healthy lifestyle will take more than enrolling in a fitness class, but it would be a start. But whether or not students should be required to take such classes based on their weight is another story. In 2008, 28.9 percent of Ohioans were classified as obese, according to the CDC. The national average was 30 percent.
Sam Greene | The News REcord
WORD ON THE STREET Do you think universities should play a role in obesity prevention? “It would be beneficial to get exercise, but at the same time, I don’t know if it’s overstepping the boundaries of power.” -Marc Maconachy,
“I think it’s a pretty important part of life — as important as school work. So I think that’s appropriate.” -Julie Eicher, second-year dance student
fifth-year communications student
Boom Boom Pow
graduate student, community planning
Living Free working with students’ addictions jayna barker the news record
Coulter loeb | The News REcord
Self-defense seminar Former deputy sheriff Debbie Gardner speaks to students about personal safety Tuesday, Jan. 19, at Zimmer Auditorium. See more photos online at newsrecord.org.
“That’s got to be a violation of some personal right. With all these hills, though, I don’t see how anyone could be obese.” -Lakisha girder,
Nearly half of America’s full-time college students abuse drugs or drink alcohol on binges at least once a month, according to a study that finds substance and alcohol abuse to be an increasing problem on campuses across the nation. Such abuse has factored into many tragedies, including date rape crimes, overdose hospitalizations and deaths. The study states that while the favored substance of abuse is alcohol, perscription drugs and marijuana are being used much more than in past years, according to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. Many colleges and universities implement policies and programs to curb alcohol and other drug use and its associated negative consequences. The study found that therapy groups are the most effective treatment for people who find that they have a problem with substance abuse. Nzingha Dalila, a clinical counselor for the University of Cincinnati counseling center, has been working with and leading a therapy group, Living Free, for two years. She is a licensed chemical addictions counselor and has 15 years of experience in the field. “There are some processes in place to help students and provide education on substance abuse,” Dalila said. “Judiciary provides consequences, but no one has been able to provide a consistent therapeutic component for students who aren’t able to pull it together.” The group is open to any student on campus that feels that drinking or drug use is causing problems in their life. On average, five to six students attend a session. Sessions are hosted
from 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Wednesdays in the counseling center in Dyer Hall. “In group, you can share and get support; we teach skills and talk about different ways to deal with different stressors,” Dalila said. “The goal doesn’t necessarily have to be sobriety or abstinence, just reducing harm.” The benefit of having a therapy group on campus is that everyone is struggling in the same ways whether it is with school, work or living day-to-day life. It provides a unique opportunity for students to be more likely to understand each other and level with one another, Dalila said. Many students abuse alcohol and drugs to self-medicate due to stress or trauma. For some, it provides a legitimate need. It becomes important and necessary for them to cope with the problems they’ve been having. But some find that the copin mechanism backfires. At first it helps, but then it causes more problems. Many times users don’t recognize the severity of the complications that come with abusing. Abusing alcohol and drugs can take over daily life without notice, Dalila said. “As a therapist, I can see what they’re doing and I can’t make them do the work that they need to do, but I can help them see that goal of taking control of their life,” Dalila said. “We want as much as possible for students to feel like they have resources. We want to be a part of helping them be successful.” Living Free bridges the gap by providing significant therapy for students who have moved beyond recreational or social abuse to harm. It helps keep students stay focused on school while helping them to recover and be abstinent, giving them a chance to get back on track.
Sexual assaults under-reported Carly Tamborski the news record
After a nine-month investigation, the Center for Public Integrity found sexual assaults on college campuses are dramatically underreported. The center, whose mission is to “educate, engage and empower citizens with the tools and skills they need to hold governments and other institutions accountable,” found many victims blame themselves or don’t recognize their experience as a sexual assault, which may reflect why one national study found more than 95 percent of sexually victimized students don’t report to police or campus officials. The Office of Postsecondary Education of the U.S. Department of Education distributes campus crime data from across the country, including the University of Cincinnati. It compiles the data from the OPE Campus Security Statistics Web site database.
Despite underreported facts across the nation, OPE’s crime data for UC actually does match the crime data provided on UC’s Federal Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act Report (found under the “Right to Know/Clery Act” on UC’s Public Safety Web site). But UC also has several different crime reports, and not all of them match OPE. One UC report that doesn’t match OPE is under “Crime Stats” on the Public Safety Web site, which divides crime reports into Uptown, Uptown East and Uptown West. The data found in UC’s 2008 Crime Statistics report for Uptown East and Uptown West conflicts with the Uptown report: one robbery was added and one rape was left out. When comparing the UC “Crime Stats” report, which doesn’t have the same data as OPE, the “Crime Stats” data is much lower than the Campus Security Report and OPE. Furthermore, organizations like
OPE are able to obtain information that UCPD cannot, which makes data collecting unbalanced. For example, below their data, both the OPE and Campus Security
living.newsrecord@gmail.com | 513.556.5913
Reports explains the seven forcible sex offenses, saying “data for Forcible Sexual Offenses includes three rape or forced fondling see assault | page 4
2008 CRIME STATISTICS
source: UC Police services