Michael Gethers/File

The ASUC Senate unanimously passed a bill last Wednesday in opposition to the Food and Drug Administration’s lifetime ban on blood donations from gay men.

The bill, SB 14, garnered full support from senators. Additionally, 16 out of the senate’s 20 members co-sponsored the bill.

Government officials on the national level, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and a number of openly gay and lesbian members of Congress, have also denounced the ban, calling it discriminatory and outdated.

Authored by CalSERVE Senator Caitlin Quinn, the bill calls on ASUC President Deejay Pepito to write a letter to President Barack Obama as well as to Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Barbara Lee expressing the ASUC’s concerns about the FDA’s lifetime ban on blood donations from men who have sex with men.

“After talking to some community members, I figured as the queer-endorsed Senator I should take a stand against this institutionalized form of homophobia,” Quinn said in an email.

The FDA ban was established in 1983 due to growing concerns surrounding the HIV/AIDS epidemic that swept the nation and particularly affected the American gay community. The ban remains in place despite 30 years of technological and medical advancement that allows HIV testing, said UC Berkeley senior Michelle Carney, who co-sponsored the bill.

According to a study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, lifting the ban would allow more than 2.6 million eligible men to make blood donations, providing 219,200 pints of donated blood.

Carney said 24 percent of blood donations for the American Red Cross in the Bay Area comes from high school and college students, making this issue particularly important for members of the UC Berkeley community.

“From organizing the blood drive ourselves (on campus), we as students were tired of seeing our community feel helpless and hopeless,” Carney said.

According to the FDA website, the ban on such donations is “not based on any judgment concerning the donor’s sexual orientation.”

In a statement released in June, however, the AABB (formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks), America’s Blood Centers and the Red Cross said they believed that the FDA’s ban “should be modified and donor referral criteria should be made comparable with criteria for other behaviors that pose an increased risk for transmission of transfusion-transmitted infections.”

“I definitely think it’s a really good start,” said UC Berkeley freshman Anthony Barros, who works in Quinn’s office and was involved in writing the bill. “Bringing visibility and awareness of this issue to Cal will be the best first steps to make change on this issue.”

Jennie Yoon is the lead student government reporter. Contact her at jyoon@dailycal.org and follow her on Twitter @jennieyoon_.

The post ASUC Senate passes bill opposing FDA ban on blood donations from gay men appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Kore Chan/File

Although a recently introduced ASUC Senate bill that asks senators to wear magnetic nametags is intended to increase ASUC transparency, it has been met with skepticism by senators and students alike.

The bill, SB 21, authored by Independent Campaign for Common Sense Senator Solomon Nwoche, asks senators to wear nametags around campus and in class. It also asks ASUC Student Advocate Timofey Semenov to write a letter encouraging campus administrators to do the same.

“The motive behind my bill is for students to be able to identify their elected officials so they can hold them accountable,” Nwoche said. “Theoretically, students can already search us through a search engine and see who we are anyways. All this nametag does is put this search into a more transparent form.”

Nolan Pack, the ASUC executive vice president, said the ASUC has already taken steps to improve its transparency. He said that the ASUC has made its agendas and meeting schedules more accessible online and that it has also begun webcasting senate meetings.

“I’m a strong proponent of making the ASUC more transparent and more accessible, and I want to make sure we’re using our time and resources to achieve that goal in a substantive way,” Pack said in an email. “As far as SB 21, it remains unclear to me whether or not this bill will promote transparency in a meaningful way.”

Some UC Berkeley undergraduates say they are unsure whether the nametags would be useful within the campus community. UC Berkeley sophomore Elena Behar said most students on campus already know who the ASUC executive officials and senators are through general interactions.

“I’m not sure if people would just want to go up to people and talk to (the ASUC senators and executive officials),” Behar said. “I think relationships (between students and senators) could also be altered, because people could feel that they’re potentially influencing senator decisions.”

Although the bill would not require senators to wear nametags, it would strongly encourage them to do so. Members of the senate, however, said the nametags could create obstacles in their everyday lives.

SQUELCH! Senator Grant Fineman said that although the bill might increase the transparency and visibility of the senate, there are many drawbacks to it.

“It could also come off the wrong way, like we’re being arrogant, like we’re showing our position at all times,” Fineman said.

CalSERVE Senator Caitlin Quinn echoed Fineman’s concerns, saying the nametags would “assert our presence too much.”

“In the classroom, we’re there to learn, just like everyone else,” Quinn said.

SB 21 will be debated Monday at the senate finance committee’s meeting.

The post ASUC Senate to debate bill asking senators to wear nametags appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Graham Haught/Staff

Our campus maintains no shortage of pride in the Free Speech Movement — that period of glorified resistance that paired disgust for the social and political conditions of the time with unbridled optimism that students could be agents of change. At its best, the Free Speech Movement united students who shared strong convictions about the presence of injustice and exposed the hypocrisy and excesses of extant institutions. The unfortunate side of the Free Speech Movement, however, has gone largely unexplored.

More than four decades later, students have achieved few political victories. Higher education remains an easy target for lawmakers looking to slash funding with few political repercussions. In its quest to economize, the state has forced the university to choose among options that thrust the idea of education as a public good into question. Students today have minimal influence in shaping these decisions. The failure of activism to defend the interests of students hints at tacit acceptance of another message that many have taken from the Free Speech Movement: the suggestion that resistance for its own sake is inherently virtuous or productive.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to decouple the vehement daily calls for all flavors of reform on Sproul Plaza from the way students and education leaders are treated in Sacramento when they advocate for issues ranging from increased education funding to Cal Grant reform to added benefits for undocumented students. When student activists and campuswide elected officials adopt wide-ranging positions — often in the form of toothless symbolic resolutions — with little regard for the repercussions of their actions, Sacramento takes note. Berkeley is hardly judged by its Peace Corps volunteers, its alumni who teach for America or its civil servants who represent their nation with distinction in contentious spots around the globe. It is held to the words of its loudest, least accountable voices.

However accepting the echo chamber of Berkeley student politics may be for positions of extreme bravado — a vote of “no confidence” in a leader yet to take office among them — there is a need to consider the effects of such posturing on the treatment of the legislative priorities of students. Lobbying is a zero-sum game. Advocating the funding of student interests means arguing against the use of that money for other worthy causes — recently, health care, primary education and tax breaks have been among them. In that regard, the oft-uncooperative, antagonistic attitude toward the political system that has become a hallmark of activism at Berkeley is unproductive. We inhabit this campus for no more than a few years at once, but our actions maintain a lasting impact on its reputation. Furthermore, they shape the way future student advocates interpret their roles in the university. The Free Speech Movement has shown us this, too.

The most important message is this: Cooperation is not akin to cowardice. As long as the majority of student activists at Berkeley wear the idea of exclusion from the organs of political power as a badge of honor, the interests of students will suffer. The political decisions that have done the most to benefit UC students in the past two years — the DREAM Act, Cal Grant reform and the May 2013 budget revisions — were sculpted in Sacramento, not on Sproul.

Thankfully, some students at UC Berkeley have bucked this trend, working actively with legislators to forge solutions for pressing problems. The California Modernization and Economic Development Act, written by senior Jack Tibbetts, has gained the endorsement of several legislators in Sacramento for its emphasis on supporting education, the environment, and projects at the county level.

Whether or not CMED ultimately passes, it ought to serve as a blueprint for future action. This year, ASUC Senators Emily Truax and Caitlin Quinn, in collaboration with Sally Ching of Cal Lobby Corps, are organizing the first ASUC Senate Lobby Day, which will bring campuswide elected officials to Sacramento to communicate with members of the state Legislature. This is a commendable first step toward forging closer ties between UC Berkeley’s leaders and California’s lawmakers. If it ultimately tempers the traditionally tone-deaf approach toward policymaking that has characterized campus advocacy in the past, it will have done a great service.

Simply put, the decimation of student interests at the state level is unacceptable. A plurality of UC Regents, state senators and state Assembly members are UC, CSU and California Community Colleges alumni. During legislative visits, they regularly reminisce about the thriving public education system of past decades. UC students belong at the negotiating table whenever the state’s education system is at stake. The ASUC Senate could easily fund regular student-led lobbying visits aimed at advancing specific, achievable legislative goals. If our campus does not resist the label of being an institution that thumbs its nose at the prospect of cooperation and dialogue, however, it will be of no use in any case.

Tanay Kothari is a UC Berkeley senior who serves as the UC Student Association’s legislative chair.

The post Finding free speech in the wrong places appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The bill, written and co-sponsored by CalSERVE Senator Caitlin Quinn, opposes the construction of the extension of the current Keystone pipeline that could harm the environment and the economy due to the harmful nature of extracting and refining crude oil from tar sands.

The bill, which passed by an 18-1 margin, instructs ASUC President DeeJay Pepito to write a letter to President Barack Obama formally expressing the ASUC’s position on the Keystone XL pipeline.

The pipeline would be harmful to the “environment, agriculture, native peoples, farmers in the Midwest, the health and safety of Americans, unionized workers, and the American economy,” the bill states.

The bill addresses concerns that pipeline construction will harm the environment without helping economies. It states that the Keystone XL pipeline would create only 35 permanent jobs and that 85 to 90 percent of the temporary jobs created by pipeline construction would not go toward job creation in local communities.

The Amalgamated Transit Union and the Transport Workers Union have also expressed opposition to the construction of the pipeline, according to the bill. The workers’ unions stated that rather than investing in the pipeline, jobs should go toward energy conservation research and public transportation improvement.

Jennie Yoon is the lead student government reporter. Contact her at jyoon@dailycal.org and follow her on Twitter @jennieyoon_.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that the ASUC Senate passed SB 11 unanimously. In fact, the bill passed on a vote of 18-1.

The post ASUC Senate passes bill in opposition to Keystone XL pipeline appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Maliq Nixon left no student group untouched.

A UC Berkeley sophomore and a political activist, Nixon was pronounced dead early Saturday morning at Stebbins Hall, a Northside co-op on Ridge Road where he was living. He was 19.

The cause of death is unknown, according to the Berkeley Police Department.

Since Saturday, there has been an outpouring of condolences on social media and from Nixon’s friends as they recall his infectious spirit.

A history major who friends say was known for his strong convictions and tireless energy, Nixon was active in campus politics. Last year, he volunteered for Cal Berkeley Democrats, interned at the Gender Equity Resource Center and worked on multiple campaigns for the campus political party CalSERVE. This year, he was already hard at work volunteering for CalSERVE Senator Briana Mullen.

“If you were to ask someone if they knew Maliq Nixon, they would know Maliq Nixon,” said CalDems President Sofie Karasek. “He was one of those people who you could bond over knowing. He brought people together just by virtue of being himself.”

Despite having a packed schedule, Nixon made time to enjoy a number of outside interests, according to close friend Ross Cunningham. He was always listening to rap group OFWGKTA, and he loved La Burrita horchatas. He also used to carry a purse — a habit Karasek remembered fondly.

“Even if he wasn’t happy, he’d make sure that other people were,” said UC Berkeley junior Marcel Jones, who knew Nixon through CalSERVE.

Many friends remember Nixon as a captivating orator. His voice would rise in volume as he became more and more engrossed in a debate.

Caitlin Quinn, a CalSERVE senator, said she first took notice of Nixon’s civic engagement before he arrived at UC Berkeley. The incoming freshman was an avid poster on the Class of 2016 Facebook page, where he often engaged in debates. While most freshmen were just settling into the residence halls, Nixon helped Quinn register incoming students to vote.

Cunningham, a UC Berkeley sophomore, also connected with Nixon early in their freshman year. The pair met during Welcome Week and quickly developed a close friendship.

“He lived in his head, often quiet and withdrawn, but he was always willing to talk with you when you’re feeling upset,” Cunningham said in a Facebook message. “He gave so much and expected nothing in return.”

At the time of his death, Nixon was working for Mullen, advocating greater access to mental health services on campus. Mullen said Nixon felt the university “wasn’t doing enough.”

Mullen and others recall Nixon advocating the inclusion of Northside co-ops in the ASUC-sponsored Berkeley redistricting map at a recent ASUC Senate meeting — another issue about which he was vocal.

“He was at every senate, every committee meeting,” Mullen said. “You couldn’t pay most Cal students to sit through those.”

Interim Dean of Students David Surratt said the campus has reached out to Nixon’s family since the death was announced. Plans for a memorial service are pending, Quinn said.

“He was very passionate and very radical, but he would be really really respectful of people that wouldn’t always agree with him,” Quinn said. “And that’s rare. I was really looking forward to seeing where he was going to go.”

Contact Libby Rainey and Savannah Luschei at newsdesk@dailycal.org

Correction(s):
A previous version of this article incorrectly said that Maliq Nixon was a prospective history major. In fact, he was a declared history major.

The post UC Berkeley sophomore Maliq Nixon dies at 19 appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Steve Rhodes/Courtesy

The ASUC Senate’s University and External Affairs Committee approved a bill at its meeting Monday that opposes the construction of Keystone XL, an extension of the Keystone Pipeline, which is now pending approval of the entire senate.

The pipeline, which would transfer crude oil from tar sands in Alberta to refineries in Texas, is politically controversial and has raised concern among students due to its potentially detrimental effects on the environment. According to the bill, SB 11, the process of refining oil from tar sands requires more energy and water than refining oil from traditional sources and generates more greenhouse gases.

The bill also reflects concern that the extraction processes will occur near the homes of indigenous populations. Many indigenous communities, particularly those in Alberta, not only have been removed from their lands but also have seen increases in diseases such as cancer, the bill states.

“It is a major issue that is killing people and has the potential to kill even more people,” said CalSERVE Senator Caitlin Quinn, who authored the bill. “Clearly, it doesn’t stretch to California, but it is a major issue we should address.”

ASUC Executive Vice President Nolan Pack authored a similar bill last year that urged the UC system to divest its funds from fossil-fuel companies. He said he applauded Quinn for her work with the environmental community to author this bill.

“Fossil-fuel divestment and defeating Keystone XL are two parts of the same movement to free us from the chains of an outdated and toxic energy infrastructure,” Pack said. “Keystone is of particular importance because if built, it will enable the release of enough CO2 to guarantee catastrophic climate change — it’s been referred to as a ‘game over’ moment.”

Proponents of the Keystone XL pipeline say it will improve the economy by creating jobs while ending the need for overseas energy imports.

“While developing cleaner sources of energy should be a long-term goal, today this country still depends on imported oil,” said Brendan Pinder, president of Berkeley College Republicans. “In addition to creating jobs, this pipeline would help shift our dependence from the volatile Middle East to Canada, a stable country with more responsible environmental regulations.”

If the full senate passes the bill, ASUC President DeeJay Pepito will write a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline for the reasons outlined in the bill.

“As a research institution that actually gets a ton of money from BP and Chevron, we should still have the autonomy to take stances on these issues,” Quinn said. “There’s been a lot of activism on (the Keystone Pipeline) recently, and I prefer to address things proactively instead of waiting until after Obama’s decision.”

UC Berkeley professor of energy Daniel Kammen agreed the tar sands represent more of an environmental threat than traditional sources of petroleum.

“The ASUC is correct in wanting to block this, because the pipeline will make the climate worse,” Kammen said. “If the U.S. was starving for energy, maybe I would understand, but the thing is, we’re not starving for fossil fuels.”

The post ASUC Senate committee passes bill opposing Keystone XL appeared first on The Daily Californian.

CalSERVE/Courtesy

CalSERVE announced one of its largest ASUC Senate slates in recent history, with 16 candidates vying for 20 senate seats.

The party has traditionally represented underrepresented groups, including the Chicano and LGBTQ communities.

Recently, the party has begun to represent other groups, such as transfer and re-entry students and student parents. The party is also looking to emphasize environmental and women’s issues.

“The progressive movement at Cal is much broader than what CalSERVE traditionally represents — we’d like to represent more of that movement,” said CalSERVE Elections Coordinator Anais LaVoie. “We are the only progressive movement on this campus.”

According to CalSERVE chair and Party Signatory Salih Muhammed, the party is running more senators to represent an even wider selection of communities.

“This election is not a matter of votes … it’s a choice for a new and fresh and alternative vision that includes participatory democracy where every student is represented,” Muhammed said.

This year’s candidates are Beatriz Barron, Brett Bruhanski, Briana Mullen, Caitlin Quinn, Destiny Iwuoma, Doug Taylor, Jenny Lu, Justin Kong, Laura Li, Monica Ruiz, Sean Tan, Sevly Snguon, Stefan Elgstrand, Taylor Fugere, Wendy Pacheco and Vy Hoang.

LaVoie said the nominees were chosen to represent CalSERVE because they share the party’s broader values of creating a diverse campus, promoting a tuition-free university and providing more resources for victims of hate crimes and sexual assault.

“We only pick candidates that all of our communities say ‘yes, they can run,’” LaVoie said. “(But) we don’t all have to agree on every issue. There is diversity.”

Bruhanski said he chose to run for senate with CalSERVE because of its history of supporting less visible communities, particularly transfer students.

“As a transfer student from Long Beach City College, coming to Cal was a very marginalizing experience,” Bruhanski said in an email. “Our school could do so much more to bolster the needs of its transfer, re-entry, student parent, and student veteran populations.”

The party’s candidates’ platforms range from increasing mental health awareness to initiating a bicycle-lending program.

One of Bruhanski’s biggest platforms is raising awareness of student-worker rights by launching a “know your rights” campaign.

“Having students that do not know when they are entitled to a break, how long that break is allowed to be, or how to file a grievance is a serious ethical problem that needs to be addressed,” Bruhanski said.

In addition to having a wide variety of platforms, the party’s candidates represent a large sample of the student body, with nominees ranging in age from 19 to 32.

“I am a unique Senate candidate, as I believe that I am the only student that identifies as a Re-Entry Transfer, in their 30’s, married, and a commuter,” Taylor, one of CalSERVE’s nominees, said in an email. “Each of these attributes makes me a rare candidate; in combination, it makes me something of a unicorn.”

CalSERVE ran 11 senate candidates last election season and secured six seats. The party has not held a senate majority since the late 1980s.

“Its important to remember that CalSERVE doesn’t see elections as a primary goal,” LaVoie said. “First and foremost, we want to make sure that our values are represented.”

ASUC elections will be held in early April.

Ally Rondoni is the lead student government reporter. Contact her at arondoni@dailycal.org.

The post CalSERVE announces candidates for ASUC Senate appeared first on The Daily Californian.