OPINIONS Monday, November 13, 2017
Emotional-support animals don't belong on campuses They can be harmful to the academic environment Kristen DiPietra Columnist
Jorden James / Editorial Artist
CALLING FOR (MORE) SUPPORT
The Binghamton University Counseling Center recently announced its partnership with ProtoCall to provide after-hours phone services to students who need support when the Center is closed. According to the Center’s website, the services will be available on nights and weekends, and the call center is staffed by master’sor doctoral-level mental health professionals. While the Editorial Board supports and commends the Center for addressing this issue of a shortage of counselors and extending its offerings to account for the time when it’s not open to students, this is only the first step in a long list of improvements in service that should be made. Although this is a positive change, we still must pay attention to its drawbacks. The term “after-hours” in itself must be evaluated; the hours that this service will be available, which are from 5 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. on weekdays, are not truly after- hours for students. The Center is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, and although these are regular business hours, they are not necessarily the same hours during which students function — or during which they are able to
seek additional support. Most students at BU, especially underclassmen, have class five days a week with few breaks in between that would be long enough to schedule an appointment with a counselor. A significant number of students are available beginning at around 5 p.m. every day, which is when the Center closes for the day. The extra services are certainly needed, but the question must be raised of how effective over-the-phone counseling will be for students in need of support. The ProtoCall call centers are located across the United States in Oregon, Michigan and New Mexico. The Center says that the counselors will be familiar with BU’s resources in order to provide the best course of action, but we question how effective this will be. It seems likely that the counselors will simply look up the University in a database of hundreds of colleges and determine from there what the best course of action will be. Since the counselors work remotely, they are not
truly familiar with specific issues BU students might be facing. Moreover, the Editorial Board is concerned about the Center’s shortcomings overall. Students who should need more than a few counseling appointments are often referred off campus, which can be a major challenge in itself. Many people don’t have adequate transportation or time to keep up with counseling off campus. Plus, cost is a huge burden to many students seeking mental health services. Oncampus services are free, but most off-campus ones are not. Additionally, it seems as though half the battle of going to the Center is getting an appointment past the first week of the semester. Countless students are placed on a waiting list, and even if they get a first appointment, it’s merely a consultation to determine whether or not they should continue seeing someone on campus. There is no guarantee that the Center will contact them again
with an available counselor during that semester. This can be highly discouraging for students who have worked hard to seek in-person help — something that can be grueling in itself. After considering models used by other colleges and universities across the country, we suggest spreading our counselors around campus at different hours to make them more accessible to students on and off campus. Perhaps there should be one or two designated counselors that serve each residential community with walkin hours on weeknights. Additionally, it would be beneficial for students who live off campus to have counselors available at the University Downtown Center. This need can potentially be filled with master’s of social work students who need to fulfill clinical hours. The Center should not stop here with its improvements. The University must prioritize students’ mental health with overall health.
Views expressed in the opinion pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece which represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial, above. The Editorial Board is composed of the Editor-in-Chief, News Editor, Opinions Editor, Sports Editor and Arts & Culture Editor.
the smells, sounds and potential damages that come with these animals, at the whim of a minority of students is unfair. Some may decry this is a form of discrimination, but these are simply rules students must follow if they enjoy the privilege of living on campus. Dorm room regulations, such as not having candles or tapestries, may seem restrictive to some, but they serve to protect these buildings and their residents. The debate over allowing emotionalsupport animals reflects a larger issue of responsibility. Are students willing to compromise the health, safety and peace of mind of other students just to satiate their own desires? Subjecting animals of all sizes, temperaments and capacities to the cramped, often rambunctious and dangerous dwellings of dorm life is exceedingly cruel. Social animals like cats, dogs and even guinea pigs require frequent attention, which is almost impossible to have from owners who attend class, extracurricular activities and enjoy a nightlife. It’s also worth noting that people can lie and say they need emotionalsupport animals because they simply want to have their beloved pets in their dorm rooms. This, in turn, discredits people who actually need service animals for legitimate health reasons. There is a fine line between needing a support animal and benefiting from one. If a student believes they cannot function without an emotional support animal that is not a service dog, they might have to re-evaluate their mental health situation. While there can always be improvements, BU provides several resources for struggling students including the University Counseling Center and the student-run High Hopes Helpline. With a burgeoning population of over 17,000 students, the University must consider new ways to accommodate the needs of its student body. Yet colleges are a place of learning above all else, and must uphold rules that guarantee the safety and comfort of the majority of students, not just those inclined to becoming pet owners.
Science has long supported the benefits of pets on human emotional and cognitive health. For veterans readjusting to life after serving, elderly patients in nursing homes and hospitals or children with autism or epilepsy, service dogs provide stability and comfort. But what about for college students who are populating campuses with a rising number of emotionalsupport animals? These animals may be therapeutic, but they pose a detriment to a college environment where students come to learn. To clarify, there is a distinction between service dogs, which are trained to perform specific functions, such as alerting owners to noise, pulling wheelchairs or responding to seizures, and emotional-support animals. Emotional-support animals, which include cats, rabbits, snakes and guinea pigs, are not trained to recognize emergency situations and develop responses. They can be handled by anyone and therefore are not inclined to help only their owners. For other students with pet allergies, phobias of certain animals or just an aversion to these animals, having roommates, floormates or classes with pet owners can become a nightmare. Jan Hoffman of The New York Times enumerates several instances where the problems caused by emotional-support animals and their ardent owners have compromised the comfort and wellbeing of other students. Several disability lawsuits waged against universities for rejecting students’ claims to animals can selfishly drain money away from a school. One student with depression and a pacemaker was awarded $40,000 because her school would not allow her guinea pig. According to Michael Masinter, professor of law at Nova Southeastern University, schools are more inclined to allow emotional-support animals because “property damage is cheaper than litigation.” While colleges offer housing, it is — Kristen DiPietra is a senior still not a home. To impose a pet-friendly double-majoring in English and environment on all students, including human development.
BU should consider cutting ties with Reynolds Group Holdings The company's employees have cited long hours, underpaid labor and minimal unpaid leave Hannah Gulko Contributing Columnist
Catch me running out of College-in-the-Woods Dining Hall halfway through my insane Tuesday schedule with a takeaway box crushed under my arm. As busy students, we revel in the opportunity to take our food to go and squeeze in as much cramming time as we can. What most don’t know, however, is that there is a interesting history behind those cardboard containers that we rely on. It all began with Sodexo,
Binghamton University’s food-service provider, and its relationship with Reynolds Group Holdings, a U.S. packaging company best known for their presence in your kitchen drawers as foil sheets. More specifically, let’s start at the very beginning, when Reynolds bought out a smaller packaging company called Pactiv. This company became infamous due to countless allegations against it by former employees who compared their working conditions to those of a sweatshop — overworked hours, underpaid labor and minimal unpaid leave. The company denied all allegations and instead fired a wave of supporting employees in one swoop for trying to unionize
and boycott Reynolds’ products. Pactiv was Sodexo’s supplier of packaging material — including massive amounts of to-go containers. A group of BU students banded together to form Students Organizing Against Reynolds (SOAR) to protest the association of our institution with a company recognized for its employee mistreatment. They reached out to University President Harvey Stenger and voiced their concerns, demanding all ties to Pactiv and therein, Reynolds, be broken. According to a member of SOAR, Stenger redirected the group to the administration of Sodexo, and after some heroic efforts on both sides, Sodexo agreed to stop using Pactiv as their packaging supplier.
But like any good story, there’s a twist. Although Sodexo changed providers to better-managed companies, BU and Reynolds Group Holdings are still very much involved. Administration within the school continue to use Reynolds as a packaging supplier in most of its production; the company’s presence is prevalent in the University Bookstore and in vending machines across campus that sell Coca-Cola bottles. SOAR’s founder, Kai Wen Yang, a professor of sociology at BU, called for an institutional boycott to have the school take a stand against indirectly promoting Pactiv’s sweatshop practices. He related the unfair conditions to student experience, writing in an email, “Overtime is something
that students face now or if not, when they graduate, they will face … Whenever students go for jobs, they will have to deal with exploitation just like the Pactiv workers did … Any companies that exploit sweatshop practices should have no place on campus.” Current members of SOAR continue to fight against the company’s presence on our campus by organizing protests, boycotts and screenings of informational films. Everyone should be on the lookout for the Pactiv logo. I would recommend peaceful protest by staying away from the purchase of these products. If their demand continues to decrease, a fall of its supply will follow — that way employees have a better
chance of working standard hours in certified and standard working conditions. Reynolds CEO Lance Mitchell claims on the company’s website, “Our goal is to continue to earn your trust and offer new products and product improvements that make running a household easier. How we do it is just as important as the products we sell.” I’d argue that to earn my trust, you have to earn my respect. To do that, these sweatshop practices need to be taken out of the equation. BU shouldn’t represent such companies and the administration of the premier SUNY should be held accountable. — Hannah Gulko is a sophomore majoring in human development.
Recognizing the drawbacks of "armchair activism"
We must effectively advocate for important causes, such as net neutrality millions of comments in support of net neutrality on the FCC’s proposal regarding their decision and the protests of large internet companies such as Google, Facebook Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Netflix, Spotify and PornHub. By the end of this month, I first found out about the Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal issue last year after watching an Communications Commission informative CollegeHumor video (FCC), will most likely be rolling on YouTube. It explained how back FCC’s 2015 net neutrality rescinding the aforementioned ruling, which classified the 2015 FCC ruling would change the internet as open for everyone. This egalitarian nature of the internet. ruling made changing internet Despite how much I utilize and speeds, blocking websites and paid value the internet, I likely forgot prioritization by an internet service about the issue after 10 minutes. provider illegal. For a while, the FCC gathered Pai’s choice to change this feedback on whether or not the existing law is contrary to the public supported their decision. So, Joshua Hummell Contributing Columnist
I also went to the FCC’s website and wrote a half-assed comment on why they shouldn’t overturn the ruling. Later, during the second wave of public feedback, I again wrote a comment — this time a bit better — to the FCC about my opposition to them disbanding net neutrality. Recently, when I read several news stories foreboding the end of net neutrality, I began to ask, who is to blame? I first blamed Pai — he is an easy choice since he is an explicit opponent. I also blamed all the large companies that have a stake in ending net neutrality, such as Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp. I even blamed regular internet users who are indifferent about the issue.
Then an idea slowly crept up me — for an issue that I held important, I barely put forth any effort. It seems to be a part of human nature to find an excuse for why something went wrong. Whether this be a societal construction or a defensive mechanism, I have slowly come to realize that the true blame lies in myself and all others like me. We are guilty of what The Guardian refers to as online activism. Its idea is simple; we see so many issues being bolstered on social media and give them likes, posts and comments to show support. This, at first glance, seems to be a good thing. All these causes are gaining traction, right? Yet, our
support is only temporary. It allows us to become “armchair activists” by engaging and disengaging with a cause quickly instead of devoting our time to it. This principle also relates to this past presidential election, in which people who had not voted admitted that they never thought President Donald Trump would win because they felt like their vote didn’t matter. They may have liked, commented and even attended the rally of their preferred candidate, but when the time came, along with 40 percent of registered U.S. voters, they did not vote. In the back of my mind, I always believed that there would be more time to defend net neutrality,
or that someone else was putting forth more effort on my behalf or even that some legislative action would be put forth to make net neutrality legal. This is the biggest flaw with internet activism — by posting, commenting or liking, we are relying on someone else to do the actual activism for us. We live in a constitutional republic. Our opinions matter, but if we don’t start engaging in actions on issues, the things that truly matter to us will slowly slip away, just as net neutrality is. — Joshua Hummell is a senior double-majoring in classical and Near Eastern studies and history.