The Orthodox Christian Church is predenominational; it’s approximately 2,000 years old. It contains both Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, whose members are referred to as “Orthodox Christians.” Within these two groups are churches that are all part of the Orthodox family, just separated on the basis of geographic region. I am part of the Coptic Orthodox Church, which originates in Egypt.

The theology that is foundational to the Church remains steadfast and constant as it was passed down from the apostles — the disciples of Christ — and continues into modern day. Although the doctrine is, without argument, the principal component of the Church, there is a cultural presence that must be considered. Unless one is part of the growing American Orthodox Church, one is bound to be confronted with cultural norms that prove to be perplexing.

Despite the fact that I’m Egyptian, being born and raised in the United States has lent itself to some difficulties. Growing up in a church that had an apparent Middle Eastern influence, it took conscious effort to distinguish culture from beliefs. Over time, I came to terms with the fact that every culture has its faults distinct from its faith. Fortunately, I also came to perceive the beauty that culture added to the Church.

For a person unfamiliar with Orthodoxy, it may seem strange at first. The unfamiliar languages and traditional form of worship coupled with a large number of people with the same ethnic background and uncertainty about how to behave is normal and expected. The primary culture differs between various Orthodox Churches, but the belief systems remain the same. It just takes some time to realize that the peculiar is not very peculiar after all.

Whether it is the Coptic, Greek, Russian or any of the other Orthodox Churches, icons depicting Jesus Christ, the saints and other holy imagery line the walls, reminding the congregation of the saints’ continual presence in the church. Also, hymns are sung in English as well as in the traditional language connecting the modern-day church in America to the geographic region where it originated.

In a liturgical service, where the Eucharist is administered, members gather together in participation of the sacramental life in one accord with the early church started by the apostles. This is the pride of the Orthodox Church. It is able to unite with the past, for it remains grounded and consistent in dogma, withstanding the pressures of time and culture, allowing for a coherent remembrance of the past.

Although cultural values and social norms are unnecessary to practice the true faith, this history is what makes the church a living remembrance to the past, which adds to its richness. Even though the incense has lost its poignancy and church attendance may have become plain routine, the profoundness of the Orthodox faith continues to be realized on a daily basis.

The Berkeley community takes pride in being a collective group of individuals that is always seeking and learning. Most students are willing to listen to differing beliefs from their own, whether they be religious or not, but when it comes to certain topics, you may feel like you know enough about a topic to form an educated opinion. Whether or not you are informed enough, this is the time to explore and not hold back. It could be scrutinizing doubts you’ve had about your stance on certain social issues, taking a class in a field of study that has been intriguing you lately, even though it has nothing to do with your major and will not satisfy any requirements, or inquiring about Orthodox believers because of ongoing persecution in countries like Egypt and Syria; the time is now. Be proactive.

Monica Mikhail contemplates the truth of the matter in her Thursday blog. Contact Monica Mikhail at mmikhail@dailycal.org.

The post A glimpse into modern-day Orthodox Christianity appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Creative Commons/Courtesy

While in high school and even more so during my first year of college, the “What are you planning on majoring in?” question always made me worry unnecessarily about the inevitable decision I’ll have to make — a decision that I was able to make with ease after I had the time to think about it. Now, it’s the “What are your plans after graduation?” question that has me stressed out.

Like many students, I have no concrete plan. Sure, there are certain occupations I’m interested in, but I have yet to decide which one I would like to pursue, so my post-graduation plans are currently nonexistent.

Taking into consideration that, as college students, even our lunch plans for the day are vague, it is beyond my understanding why some people are unable to understand why a student wouldn’t have any future plans in mind. It doesn’t make sense to me why there lies this expectation that students must, from the beginning, have a goal beyond their college years to strive toward because there really isn’t a point to studying “aimlessly.”

This is not to say that those who ask this stress-inducing question expect a detailed plan — if anything, it’s a nice follow-up question to “What is your major?” However, because this inquiry brings on anxiety for many students, there must be social pressures that invoke it, such as the pressure to be successful at a young age and the need to gain a sense of security.

For some of us, it seems like time is running out — that the ticking on the analog clock will eventually stop. Except, surprise, time actually won’t be running out. We live life as if we’re on a time limit: The quicker you reach your goal, the more impressive. This is confirmed when people praise those who accomplish what others have accomplished at a younger age — which, although impressive, should not diminish the achievements of other students no matter the magnitude or the age that success came by. It is important to be a hard worker and to be productive — but not at the expense of rushing through life.

Then there are those who figure that once they’ve accomplished what they set to accomplish, then they will stop stressing. If  a student stresses majorly through his or her college years about college and about the future, chances are that even after gaining the level of security desired, he or she will still be worried and want more.

The truth of the matter is that stressing won’t make you successful; it’ll just make you miserable. The time for adult decisions will come. Decisions will eventually be made. In the meantime, it doesn’t hurt to enjoy these four years instead of speeding through them or having them clouded with apprehension for the future. Plan for your post-grad life, but enjoy the present. The undergraduate years only happen once.

Image Source: marsmet481 via Creative Commons 

Monica Mikhail contemplates the truth of the matter in her Thursday blog. Contact Monica Mikhail at mmikhail@dailycal.org.

The post Impracticality of stressing over post-grad life appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Creative Commons/Courtesy

It starts off innocently enough. My friends and I will tease one another until one friend starts laughing hysterically, like a psycho, which we jokingly call her. Little do we know that one of her family members is dealing with mental health issues. A more common scene is when a friend randomly (as it always seems to be unsubstantiated) announces that she feels fat; we then try to convince her otherwise. She doesn’t recognize that she is the thinnest one among her friends and that there may be someone in the room who’s been struggling with weight issues.

But these occurrences are innocent enough. People typically don’t call their friends psychos to make jabs at them or call themselves fat with the intention of having their friends evaluate their own current weight.

It’s left up to the recipient, then. That person decides whether to react and risk accusation of being too sensitive, because how would anyone know about any sentiments toward a specific word if he or she neglected to share their personal experience with anyone? No harm is done if the person chooses not to react, but if he or she disapproves and decides not to say anything, there is a risk of feeling bitterness toward the friend.

Although a call to change is likely to be started by an individual who has a personal attachment to a specific word, they are not the only ones responsible for raising awareness. There must be a reaction to words that are used inappropriately because, even if it doesn’t affect you personally, it can cause unnecessary grief to another person.

While I wish people were more aware of the power that words have, I realize that we cannot completely eradicate all words that can potentially offend someone. It just isn’t practical — or logical — for that matter. Words are created with an intended meaning, and over time, negative connotations have been tacked on to them. Now is the time to correct words that have gone wrong.

There are many movements that pledge to end the usage of certain words. One of the more popular campaigns is Spread the Word to End the Word, which calls for the end of the word “retard.” Initially, this term only had a medical connotation, but over time, it has been more commonly used as a slur — like many other words and phrases, such as “lame” and “dumb.” Another familiar campaign is ThinkB4YouSpeak, which asks for people to pledge not to use homophobic words and phrases.

Thankfully, because of these movements, words and phrases like the “R” word and homophobic slurs are becoming less popular, and chances are, if someone does happen to use any one of these slurs, a well-meaning friend will speak up. Unfortunately, though, there are words that have the same negative effect, but their potential for harm goes unrecognized.

For example, calling someone “emo,” “crazy,” or “psycho” or jokingly accusing that person of having a psychological disorder such as obsessive-compulsive disorder seems more funny than serious; however, in our jesting, we forget that mental health concerns are a reality for many people.

It is worth the effort to be cognizant of the effect of words on others. For those who are offended by the use of certain words, it is their responsibility to raise awareness and speak out when other people use such words. And, although difficult, we all must be more understanding. People will joke around and use words whose harm is unknown — because, unfortunately, there are many issues that still remain under the radar.

Monica Mikhail contemplates the truth of the matter in her Thursday blog. Contact Monica Mikhail at mmikhail@dailycal.org.

The post Words gone wrong appeared first on The Daily Californian.

lochnessjess via flickr/File

It is one of the first things that makes students uncomfortable when moving to Berkeley — the widespread poverty. Encountering this social welfare problem tends to be strange because for the majority of students, this level of poverty is only seen on occasion and probably not seen in our hometowns. Yet this feeling of uneasiness doesn’t last long.

At times, I’m conflicted as to how to respond when someone asks me for money. Should I give them money? If I decide to, should I pull out my wallet or put change in my pockets ahead of time for easy access? If I decide not to, how do I say no? In my personal experience, these encounters are typically guilt-inducing as well, because while I have access to a variety of food options with a swipe of my Cal 1 Card at Crossroads, people asking for money along Telegraph Avenue and other Berkeley streets may be hungry or lacking a place to sleep at night. As I became acquainted with Berkeley, I was informed about details concerning the issue of poverty in this city and cameto realize that it was more complicated than I had made it out to be. In turn, I justified my growing passiveness toward the homeless until I became comfortable with it.

I figured that there were organizations in Berkeley aiding the cause, providing places where those in need could receive shelter and food. I convinced myself that other people have made this issue their focus — that I didn’t need to worry myself about it. I even told myself that some of the homeless chose this life for themselves. I just walk past them quickly and go about my day, because even if I responded to every request for money when asked, my dollar wouldn’t make a difference, I told myself.

As the months passed, I simply became comfortable with the fact that homeless people are part of Berkeley’s community. And, as I became more comfortable with it, I cared less and less.

Recently, I have realized that getting too comfortable is dangerous.

Once we grow comfortable and settle with the state of our community, it will be difficult to recognize the existing need when we have been living around it for so long. As a community, we become numb to problems because they have been normalized. This results in a lack of concern, slowing down advancements toward change. It is difficult to make progress toward serving and minimizing the homeless community, dealing with the crime rate, addressing the faults existing in primary and secondary education system in Berkeley or even mentioning the uncleanliness of city streets when we have grown used to all these issues.

It is my hope that I’m never too comfortable and that I realize that although I don’t necessarily have to advocate for every cause, there is always something little that I can do. When faced with huge social issues, Berkeley has been known throughout history to stand up, have a voice and act. However, it is in how we address the “little” problems that will confirm our strength as acommunity for our greater community.

Monica Mikhail contemplates the truth of the matter in her Thursday blog. Contact Monica Mikhail at mmikhail@dailycal.org.

The post The danger in being too comfortable appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Maura Chen/Staff

Contact Maura Chen at mchen@dailycal.org.

The post PRIDE appeared first on The Daily Californian.

As a former member of the People’s Park Community Advisory Board and current university staff, I write in response to Lynn Yu’s piece “Peoples Park Problems” and the general low opinion of these pages for Cal students who serve off-campus communities.

If the staff writers and editorial board respected their peers, who devote thousands of service hours annually, they would seek the opinion of at least one of the more than the 10,600 UC Berkeley undergraduate and graduate students who engage in public service each year when covering matters such as off-campus poverty, homelessness, education inequity, mass incarceration and other issues of oppression and exploitation.

Instead, we get pieces like that of Yu. She states the park is one of the “biggest headaches for the city” and that she has arrived at this conclusion not by speaking with people in the park but through speaking with students. She then blames the stagnant situation on loud “dissenters” who “cry back.” She proposes “relocating Cal Corps to a new facility there” because “the university continues to expand every year.” She ends by stating she would like a park — but one “that’s actually for the students.”

Several longtime Berkeley residents have made incisive comments on Yu’s opinion piece. Instead of adding to their critique, I would like to distance Cal Corps Public Service Center from her remarks, and share my disappointment in Yu’s and this paper’s general approach to reinforcing rather than challenging commonly held assumptions about those on the wrong side of power and privilege.

When we do get stories of poverty and homelessness among your pages, we find not one interview with a student who is actively confronting this issue in the community. Not one student who is tutoring local youth is cited as a source in stories of the achievement gap in the city of Berkeley. Essays on mass incarceration go without citing one formerly incarcerated Cal student.

These are uninformed opinions with no effort to cover a cocurricular activity that enriches learning and that just about one third of the entire student body participates in. They include minimal to zero interviews with student leaders engaged in public service — as compared with the level of coverage of Cal sports, in which around 1,000 students participate. The exception to this — a piece highlighting Minh Dang’s accomplishments — demonstrates the rule.

As Cal Corps’ assistant director, I encourage Cal students to provide direct material assistance to under-resourced communities. Students find many avenues for providing philanthropy or hands-on direct service. Yet simple volunteerism does nothing to change the system that produces such inequity and is as to social change as memorizing dates in high school is to original scholarship in college.

The Daily Cal’s fellow student leaders excel in their public service pursuits when they facilitate reflective dialogue with their peers — dialogue that questions and problematizes the status quo — in the process often speaking directly with community members to hear their stories. The personal transformations that your peers undergo through this process often leads them to center their social change efforts on the voices and leadership of those most impacted by the injustices cited above.

So why not speak with these students instead of floating (even as “fun” filler) the notion that People’s Park would be a suitable site for the public service center? Your decision to run Yu’s piece demonstrates how far removed you are from the topic about which she writes and is an insult to the UC Berkeley students who live the public service mission of the University of California.

Thousands of students commit large portions of their Cal days seeking to transform power and engage in authentic relationships across differences. These students challenge themselves and their assumptions and have genuine dialogue with the nontraditional, localized working class and working poor leadership of color.

Rather than acknowledge her assumptions about the people who inhabit the park, Yu jumps to a farcical conclusion and one that seeks to cut off at the knees any counter argument by painting those who engage in such arguments as unreasonable. Unfortunately, your writers routinely fail to interrogate their assumptions in the writing process, a failure that reflects poorly on your paper.

From my own practice of coaching students to confront material needs in the short term, while exploring the structural dimensions of their service, I have seen them develop a deeper understanding of the social, political and economic issues that surround us. What will it take for the Daily Cal to take even the first step: to care to pursue these same stories with weight and depth?

— Mike Bishop,
Cal Corps assistant director

A misunderstanding of a clear assertion

In his response to my recent article on the proposed Aquatics Center, Vice Chancellor Wilton alleges that I made “erroneous assertions” about financing for the project. Yet I never claimed (nor presumed) that the proposed Aquatics Center would be financed by the same model as the $153 million Student-Athlete High Performance Center. What I asserted, and continue to assert, is that administrators in Intercollegiate Athletics made false statements to the press and to the university about the level of private donations, with the result that UC Berkeley has had to take on significant debt for IA projects.

In claiming that the Aquatics Center is parallel “in concept” to the Student-Athlete High Performance Center, I referenced their being designed for the exclusive use of Intercollegiate Athletics. In none of the documents I have read has a reason been given that the Aquatics Center should be reserved exclusively for Intercollegiate Athletics.

Vice Chancellor Wilton claims that the project “will serve every member of the campus and neighboring community who use university pools.” He suggests that I am misinformed to think otherwise, but M. Kathryn Scott, the director of UC Berkeley’s physical education department, raises a similar objection: “The details of usage … do not show any benefit of increased or enriched water time to any program other than the Intercollegiate Athletics Water Polo and Swimming and Diving Teams.”

The projects the vice chancellor cites as evidence that capital projects can be and have been devoted to particular campus populations that all “support the academic interests of some of our students and faculty.” The problem here is that a significant piece of Berkeley’s precious real estate would be devoted exclusively to an “auxiliary enterprise” of the university — Intercollegiate Athletics — and therefore, the project does not conform to the principle stated in the 2020 Long Range Development Plan — namely, to “provide the space, technology and infrastructure we require to excel in education, research, and public service.” Nor does it conform to the Southside Plan, designed to meet another of the objectives articulated in the 2020 LRDP: to “provide the housing, access, and services we require to support a vital intellectual community and promote full engagement in campus life.” Indeed, as some have pointed out, by eliminating yet another parking lot, the proposed Aquatics Center makes “full engagement” with campus life more difficult for a great many.
I note the vice chancellor does not discuss at all the rejected possibility that the Aquatics Center be located at Strawberry Canyon, where swimming facilities (in need of upgrade and repair) already exist. The Environmental Impact Report acknowledges that this site “would be the environmentally preferred alternative.”

Vice Chancellor Wilton misunderstands my remarks about Berkeley’s crumbling bricks and mortar. These remarks were an attempt to alert the Berkeley community to the deleterious effects of declining state investment in public education. I do not dispute that the administration has worked hard — even heroically — to minimize these effects. What I wished to point out is that the decline in state support for public education makes it a target for venture capitalists. Just as impoverished neighborhoods become investment magnets for developers (without benefiting the residents, often displaced by gentrification), I am suggesting, the land granted by the state for the education of its citizens is increasingly vulnerable for exploitation. In this case, it seems to me that the will of private donors is sufficient to subvert the expressed will of UC Berkeley with regard to the development of available space.

— Celeste Langan,
UC Berkeley associate professor of English