Yet, it has become clear to us that the well-intended energies of the student activists is often misdirected and it is the opinion of the Daily Sundial editors that the focus of blame needs to shift from university administrators to our elected local and state leadership.  It is time to call upon our lawmakers to do whatever is necessary to give our administration the resources required for an affordable education.

The student’s voices have echoed loud on our pages and we see that as our contribution to the cause and a fulfillment of our duty as journalists. We applaud the exemplary efforts of the students who have spearheaded the cause; they have worked hard to represent the financial interests and burdens of CSUN students. However, the cuts to education do not come from CSUN President Jolene Koester or Chancellor Charles Reed. We implore students to direct their calls to action instead to the state legislature, to those with authority to acquire and distribute funding.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget proposal that includes a $500-millon cut to the CSU system is actually a best-case scenario, hinging on a ballot measure to get voter approval extending tax increases set to expire in June.  However, partisan lines run deep and Republican lawmakers stand in the way of putting the measure on the ballot at all.

In a budget update from CSUN chief financial officer Tom McCarron last month, he said without the tax extensions – taxes Californians already pay – the CSU system is facing a $1 billion dollar cut instead.  You thought it was bad now, but it is completely possible things will get worse.
In an opinion piece published in the LA Times by UCLA Chancellor Gene Block, he pointed out the tragic irony of this impasse – 42 Republicans in the legislature, 29 of them were students in the state system of higher education and yet they will watch it crumble on the premise of being unwilling to see any cuts to education and unwilling to raise taxes.  However, this is not an option with a state budget deficit of more than $15 billion through June 2012, something has to give.
Last week, Assembly minority leader and Fresno State alumna Connie Conway, proposed a budget, which includes the $500-million dollar cut to the CSU system and would prevent the doubling of that figure on the wing-and-a-prayer that state tax receipts continue to come in higher than anticipated – $5 billion higher than anticipated.

Or we could deal with reality and just see if voters are willing to keep paying the taxes they are already paying.
Either way, increases to tuition and fees have little to do with Koester, Reed, or any university administration and we suggest students direct their energies at their local lawmakers.  Move the sit-ins, rallies and other demonstrations to their doors.  Write letters or send appeals via video message to state senate and assembly members reminding them of their obligation to preserve the public education system they once enjoyed.

Say something as inflammatory as “new $150,000 statue” to a CSU student, and you can usually look forward to an earful about the lack of funds in the CSU system. A.S. was reminded of that fact Tuesday when two students argued against the statue at the A.S. meeting. The economic responsibility to place education first is something people have on their minds a lot lately, and rightfully so.

Yet, maybe A.S. is not who we should be gunning for.

Only $10,000 of the funding for the statue is coming from A.S. This amounts to less than 7 percent of the statue’s total cost. The rest of the $150,000 is being funded by alumni donations. In the big scheme of higher education, $10,000 is hardly a drop in the bucket. Enter CSUN alumni.

It seems odd that during a time when students are dropping out of school because of impacted classes, $140,000 from alumni donations is being used to erect a bronze replica of our mascot.

In case you haven’t a clue how alumni donations work, allow us to run it down for you: People who have graduated from CSUN can donate money to the school, and these alumni have the power to choose where their donations will be used. They may choose to create a scholarship, or to build a new Performing Arts Center.

Perhaps those who would provide the money for the upcoming Matador statue contributed because they cherish the degree they received from CSUN, and they feel the best way to show their appreciation is to have a giant bronze statue of our mascot brought onto the campus.

But clearly, there are better places their money can be directed.  More scholarships or donations for specific departments would be far more beneficial than a statue that would permanently symbolize the wasteful spending that has led to California’s draconian budget crisis.

Under no circumstances should we point fingers at the Alumni Association for their donations, especially since we can no longer depend on our own state to bail us out of our desperate financial crisis.  The generosity of those who decide to give should be acknowledged, and it’s their right to choose where their money will go.

Some may want to build this statue out of a need to see their names engraved on a plaque. If that is the case, while we can’t say thank you, we won’t stand against you. Others are donating this money out of unmitigated charity and a true love of the university. If that is the case, we appreciate your generosity, but for the sake of students on campus, we beg you: please consider our priorities.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

We have written often in the pages of the Daily Sundial about the unique challenges our students, faculty and administration have faced in the wake of the budget cuts. There have also been inspirational stories of students succeeding against many obstacles. We have tried to hold your elected student leadership, Associated Students, accountable by reporting fairly and accurately.

Last semester we celebrated the one-year anniversary of the Metrolink crash, with which many are still struggling to find a way to cope. We had the honor of welcoming such iconic women as Dr. Maya Angelou and India.Arie to our campus.

With this semester coming to a close, we as a staff cannot help but indulge in looking back. We have been privileged to work with complete freedom, the freedom to make mistakes and learn from them. As journalism students, we owe a great deal to our department. As a newspaper staff, we owe it all to our amazing publisher, Melissa Lalum. She has let us be an independent entity that has the freedom and support to grow and learn. For any of you that know us as a staff, you can see that we are a representation of the diversity that has made my time here at CSUN so memorable.

The world is changing at a rapid pace. To the graduating class of 2010, I offer my congratulations and ask only one thing of us. Let us not be afraid to be lost, to not have all the answers, to struggle and to be resilient in carving out our own place in this world. What that will look like, none of us know, but we owe it to ourselves to figure it out.

Lilianna oustinovskaya editor in chief 2009-2010

Immigrant women in particular are the most vulnerable population in terms of domestic abuse because of social isolation, financial dependency, and immigration laws. A study by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene in 2004 found that in New York City 51 percent of intimate partner homicide victims were foreign-born, while 45 percent were born in the United States. This is not to say that domestic violence is an issue that especially affects immigrants. Unfortunately domestic abuse is prevalent throughout society, however the immigrant community may not know their rights and where to seek help.

Language barriers and an unfamiliarity with immigration laws keeps immigrant women from speaking out particularly because they believe that laws that would protect them don’t apply to them, either because they don’t know or their partner tells them this is the case. This invisible yet thick suffocating barrier keeps immigrant spouses right where their abusers want them. It creates the perfect victim in their eyes.

A study published by the Georgetown Journal on Poverty law found that 48 percent of Latinos reported an increase of violence at the hands of their partners since they immigrated to the United States. It’s not just Latinos, the National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control, surveyed immigrant Korean women, concluding that 60 percent of participants had been battered by their husbands.

It is common in these situations for the perpetrator to threaten their spouse with deportation if they speak out against them. If they’re petitioning for a green card then the abuser may also hold that over their heads. As an immigrant it’s easy to feel invisible and marginalized.

What immigrant survivors of domestic abuse may not know is that victims of crimes, such as domestic abuse, that don’t have legal status in the United States can apply for a U-Visa. Since its inception in 2007, 10 million immigrants that have been affected by domestic violence have benefited from the U-Visa. Survivors can benefit from the U-Visa if they help authorities during the investigation or conviction.

Provisions in the Violence Against Women Act also makes it possible for a survivor who is married to an abuser and who are residents or citizens to solicit their own residency without the knowledge of the abuser.

This is a societal and systemic problem that can be addressed if handled correctly and not highlighted only in extreme situations. We and those in a position to advocate for this segment of domestic violence survivors have a responsibility. Programs and those who work in the health care field need to take culture into consideration and have people on staff who understand where these victims are coming from. Not only will they be able to communicate effectively if they speak the same language but the cultural understanding they can offer can make all of the difference.

Because we live in Los Angeles we have all the benefits of living in a city full of immigrants and we are also in a position to help immigrant victims of domestic violence by keeping a watchful eye on them, giving them information that could help them not only leave their abusive environment but apply for a U.S. visa on their own.

Unsigned editorials represent the majority view of the Sundial editorial board and are not necessarily those of the journalism department. Other views on the opinion page are those of the individual writer.

For graduating seniors, it’s the final stretch. Many students are currently looking for employment opportunities, hoping that the career-related activities completed on and off campus over the last few years will give them the edge needed over their competitors.

Others may be taking this time to address the hollowness of their current resume by doing volunteer work in their field of interest or by means of an unpaid internship. However, while desperation to better future prospects may lead a senior to do free work in exchange for further experience, references or a job offer, it is important to keep in mind that the education received at CSUN makes a graduate a valuable asset to any organization, therefore worthy of formal compensation in return.

In the New York Times article, “Growth of Unpaid Internships May Be Illegal, Officials Say,” published April 2, 2010 this very issue is addressed. With employment options scarce for recent college graduates, there has been a significant increase in unpaid internships available in the job market.

While there are benefits to an unpaid internship such as hands-on experience and networking, it is the responsibility of the employer to meet federal and state regulations.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Fair Labor Standards Act, a person is designated a trainee – i.e. unpaid intern – and not an employee if the below criteria is met:

1. The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to what would be given in a vocational school or academic educational instruction;

2. The training is for the benefit of the trainees;

3. The trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under their close observation;

4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees, and on occasion the employer’s operations may actually be impeded;

5. The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period; and

6. The employer and the trainees understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.

Oftentimes, a person can sense when the tasks being asked of them at their internship are weighty and that of a slothful employee who simply redirected the work to the giddy intern. It is vital that young people not sit idly and take maltreatment because, well, “I’m just an intern. This is a short term gig and I can put it on my resume. It will be worth it in the end.” Instead, take a proactive step and seek out opportunities in organizations that see their interns as a part of a team and an investment in the future of the organization.

Furthermore, it is important that young people not sell themselves short. While filling out those internship applications, distribute that resume for some paid job positions. Still in inferior-apprentice mode, many students are conditioned to believe their efforts thus far aren’t worth compensation.

Soon-to-be graduates are no longer students, but scholars. With a diploma in reach, graduates must begin to see themselves as professionals. Or, as the late self help author Robert Collier so purely put it in “The Secret of the Ages,” “Your chances of success in any undertaking can always be measured by your belief in yourself.”

Unsigned editorials represent the majority view of the Sundial editorial board and are not necessarily those of the journalism department. Other views on the opinion page are those of the individual writer.

Illustration by Jessica Strelioff

There’s an ever-evolving social scene that is becoming more and more mainstream. It has existed since the 1950’s, when rebels still had a cause and it wasn’t cool to be cool. The 21st century has now spawned their own version of “the hipster” (not to be confused with hippies) and has turned the definition into one of confusion and general disdain amongst peers of this generation.

The hipster persona breaks down as such:
On a random night of the week (it doesn’t really matter which night) the newest hot spot (that’s actually existed for years) is packed to capacity. The men (who seem to have all rolled out of the same bed) sport shaggy hair (that probably hasn’t been washed in d

ays, usually topped by a fedora or sagging beanie) and are dressed in women’s size two jeans (purchased liberally) and a plunging V-neck T-shirt (preferably from American Apparel) and/or “vintage” tee with some classic cartoon character or clever saying silk-screened on the front. They stand against the wall lightly clutching their half-empty can of PBR (Pabst Blue Ribbon beer) with a look of pure contempt penetrating from behind their non-prescription horned-rimmed glasses over anyone who is not like them.

All the while the ladies, though subsequently different, also tend to resemble each other, dressed in layers or mis-matched outfits that look like it took seconds to put together, but are actually carefully constructed ensembles, usually taking key styles from past decades and trying to pass them off as their own. Their hair, much like the guys, is unkept and likely held in place by a headband across the forehead (circa Olivia Newton John’s “Let’s Get Physical” 80’s music video). The lady hipster shares the same “I don’t care what you think of me” attitude as their male counterpart, but mixes in a snobbery arrogance when walking past “outsiders.”

Perhaps the only thing that “these people” have to offer greater society is to be the source of websites that seem to exploit the nonsensical shenanigans they engage in on a regular basis.

But to know a hipster, is to love a hipster? Doubtful.

It becomes a question of understanding, and whether or not these people wish to be understood. Perhaps they

behave in a way to keep people guessing about them, and that in turn is their true uniqueness. But if all that is ever expected of them is to the keep someone guessing, then how original are they to begin with. They begin to follow the idea that they must consistently come up with something more outrageous than their last behavior and in turn, how much of them is “true?”

Anyhow, what is there to understand in the first place? Hipsters don’t seem to have a solid stand on any social issue or associate with any school of thought. They only follow the latest “hot, new indie” band and socialize amongst each other in order to post pictures on social networks to showcase their fabulousness. Unlike the punks, the emos, the goths, etc., there is an air of openess and freedom

that radiates off of hipsters. This, in theory, is ideal, to not be strapped down to any one thing. But if all that is ever expected of them is the keep someone guessing, then how original are they to begin with.

Unsigned editorials represent the majority view of the Sundial editorial board and are not necessarily those of the journalism department. Other views on the opinion page are those of the individual writer.

Non-conformity in a social circle that produces identical “individuals” is something that will forever be desired. And with the endless circle of sociological theory in which the individual impacts the society while having the society impact the individual will forever keep everyone the same, and therefore it seems as though hipsters, whatever form they take, will continue to reproduce.

This, in the end, shouldn’t matter a single ounce to the modern-day hipster since no self-respecting hipster is willing to address himself as so. And perhaps, a true hipsters has already decided to stop reading this piece because it is no longer “in” to keep doing so.

John Wall and Kentucky are soaring on the court, but they are scoring low in their studies. Kentucky's men's basketball team has a 31 percent graduation rate. Courtesy of MCT

With the NCAA Tournament in full effect many students, fans and alumni are caught up rooting for their college basketball team to win a national championship. Meanwhile, they don’t even realize that the student-athletes of their universities are struggling to graduate.

Recently the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports at the University of Central Florida released the graduation rates of all the schools, excluding Cornell, competing in the NCAA Tournament. Overall the graduation rates of all students-athletes are at a solid 64 percent but there is a huge disparity between white players and African American players.

Eighty four percent of white basketball players go on to graduate compared to 56 percent for African Americans.

The universities of Kentucky and UNLV have a graduation rate of 100 percent for their white athletes but only have 18 percent and 13 percent apiece for their African American athletes.

For example, this season Southern California decided to punish itself by declining to compete in the Pac 10 Tournament after allegations broke that OJ Mayo received cash and gifts during the 2007-08 season.

Many schools don’t care about their student-athletes graduating but instead rather have a winning team that can generate money.
These acts should not go unpunished.

The U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has the perfect solution to push universities to make education their number one priority. Duncan believes the NCAA should ban college basketball teams with a graduation rate below 40 percent from postseason play.

If this proposal were to be put into practice one of the most popular teams in the tournament, Kentucky, would be out of the big dance due to its 31 percent graduation rate.

Along with Kentucky, 12 other tournament teams have a graduation rate below 40 percent, with Maryland being the lowest at a dismal 8 percent.
Unfortunately Duncan’s idea probably won’t become a reality for awhile, as the NCAA wants the popular teams to compete in the postseason in order for CBS and ESPN to pay them top dollar to televise their games.

With the NCAA and the universities worrying about getting more money into their pockets, in the long run, student-athletes suffer by not getting a degree. Yes there are some exceptions for the ones that make it to the NBA but the chances of student-athletes making it to the professional level are slim to none. So after the student-athletes are done playing basketball they are dumped back into the real world without a diploma to fall back on.

Last season Villanova, who went to the final four, had a graduation rate of 89 percent and the national champion North Carolina had a graduation rate of 86 percent. With these two teams being successful in the tournament they showed that schools don’t need to dumb it down in order to have a winning team.

An example of photoshop manipulation. Can you spot the difference? Photo illustration by Caitlin McCarrick / Assistant Photo Editor

Huge zit in your graduation photos? Dark circles under your eyes in your wedding shoot?  Aunt Susie was in the restroom when the family photo was taken? There is one easy solution to all these photo mishaps: Photoshop—both a noun and a verb frequently used and heard these days.

A few clicks here and your zit is history. A few more clicks and your eyes are bright, and Aunt Susie’s in the group shot now. It’s a perfectly acceptable way to alter and manipulate images. Well, perfectly acceptable in most situations.

People have lost their jobs, credibility, and have essentially been blacklisted for using Adobe Photoshop or similar image-editing software. Why such a serious crime? Well for photojournalistic images (which are an attempt to portray a scene or situation as close to reality as possible), altering an image is dishonest and unethical.

Photographs used for news must live up to strict ethical standards. The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) Code of Ethics offers codes of ethics with nine important ideals that journalists should lock up in their memory banks. Number six explains that “Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects” (nppa.org).

What does this mean? It means if there’s a telephone pole in the background that looks like it’s sticking out of a person’s head in the photo, it has to stay there. If the president has bad skin that day, altering it in any way to make it look like he just got a facial is completely unacceptable. If the color of his or her shirt would look much better against that background if it were black, it still must stay white.

In 2003, Brian Walski, staff photographer for the New York Times, was fired for manipulating his image to create a scene from the war in Iraq that never really took place.  In 2007, Allan Detrich, a former Pulitzer Prize finalist and staff photographer for The Toledo Blade, was suspended, and then later resigned for digitally altering several of his images.

More recently, in 2010, a prize-winning photo was disqualified from a World Press Photo contest because the photographer, in post editing, removed a small portion of a foot in the background, altering the original photo.
Sadly, these are but a small fraction of the incidences where ethical standards were violated. Here at the Sundial, adhering to these journalistic standards is serious business.

So just how much can we alter photos? When exactly does it become an ethics violation? It’s a fine line, but without these strict standards, there can be no trust between the viewer and the photojournalist. Different news organizations have their own standards, but generally, basic darkroom techniques are allowed, such as cropping an image or darkening, lightening, brightening or sharpening an image to make it look closest to how the scene really appeared. Editors can ask themselves, why am I editing this photo? Is it for technical reasons, or is it to alter the image to make it appear more interesting?

Digital manipulation can serve many purposes at the right time and place.  There are even Web sites, such as worth1000.com, that hold contests where the best Photoshopped images win. Or perhaps you will want to use your Photoshop skills to prove to your friends that you saw Bigfoot on your vacation—but in photojournalism, there is zero tolerance for such tampering.

Unsigned editorials represent the majority view of the Sundial editorial board and are not necessarily those of the journalism department. Other views on the opinion page are those of the individual writer.

Most of us came to this school because it’s affordable. As coveted and prestigious as Harvard, Stanford and  other elite schools are, I’m quite sure most of us don’t have the trust funds to go to those universities.

Truth is, the CSU system was among one of the best institutions in the country where students had an opportunity to get an affordable, quality education. However, due to the inefficiency of the people supposedly running our state, us students, faculty and staffers must suffer the consequences of their bad judgment calls.

Classrooms are filled to the max. Professors have to cut their curriculum in half or simplify it because it is not humanly possible to grade several hundred term papers during the course of the semester. And remember the days when crashing a course was simply a matter of getting a permission number?

Now, everytime a student comes in with pleading eyes asking the professor if there is any room on the roster, the response is “no sorry, I can’t take anymore.”

Students are enrolled in school, but can’t take classes. Faculty are taking mandatory unpaid days off, leaving many students unprepared for the “real world.” Staffers are worried the furlough days are going to evolve into the unthinkable – unemployment.

To further illustrate the problem, college-aged students now have no other option than to join the workforce. But with no qualifications, the only jobs we can fill are dead-end service sector jobs, usually with little to no benefits.

With the rare exception of a few lucky individuals, most of us will not be able to walk into our dream career and say to our potential employer, “I am an almost-graduate from a Cal State school, but didn’t finish my degree because I couldn’t afford it.”

I’ve heard the argument that even though our tuition has gone up, it’s still cheaper than other schools. Be that as it may, it doesn’t mean everyone can still attend. This means we will have a less educated workforce and more need for welfare programs to support people who won’t have the means to support themselves.

Our generation, the Millenial Generation, is setting themselves up to be the first generation since the Great Depression to experience sky-rocket unemployment rates according to a recent report released by the Pew Research Center.

Public education is supposed to be accessible to everyone, no matter what your background. But with tuition rising and the ever-widening class gap, public education is becoming more of a joke.

Students need to take back our right to an affordable education. We need to figure out what we can do to prevent it from getting worse. And believe me, it will if everyone is complacent and lets the situation run their lives.

Education is one of our most sacred and respected institutions. Education not only ensures financial stability, but also provides the knowledge that we need to realize when we are being exploited, robbed, or lied to. Write the governor, the secretary of education, or even the Board of Trustees. Let them know that you’re not going to pay for their bad judgment calls.

Although, if we decide that inaction is the best course of action, we may be coworkers in the near future. Imagine, you, an almost-engineering graduate, and your friend, an almost-journalism graduate, side-by-side, folding polo tees at the Gap.

Unsigned editorials represent the majority view of the Sundial editorial board and are not necessarily those of the journalism department. Other views on the opinion page are those of the individual writer.

Last Thursday more than 2,000 copies of the Daily Sundial were vandalized across campus. Someone or some group went from newspaper stand to stand, removed the papers and ditched them in the trash.
This was especially frustrating and upsetting because it happened to be a special issue “Generation Hope” that highlighted our social engagement with humanitarian issues and how they give back to society.

It appears the participants behind this scornful act were upset over an opinion piece in the issue by Kimberly Krieger, “The Greek society’s philanthropy apathy.”

It’s time to grow up and understand that disagreements exist and that  dumping the student paper is against the law.

Option A: Come into the Sundial and talk with an editor. We are located in Manzanita Hall, Room 140.

Option B: Write a letter to the editor following the guidelines printed in the opinion section. Send to opinion@sundial.csun.edu.

Option C: Comment on the web. You must adhere to the comment policy.

Alright, I’m sure many students on campus think throwing papers in the trash is OK.

In 2006, California enacted a law to specifically address the growing problem of newspaper theft and/or vandalism.  California Penal Code Section 490.7 prohibits a person from taking more than 25 copies of the current issue of a free or complimentary newspaper if done with the intent to: recycle for cash or other payment; sell or barter the newspaper; deprive others of the ability to read or enjoy the newspaper; or harm a business competitor.

You are free to share your views, in fact, it is your right to do so. Those who are furious with the content exercise your rights and your freedoms. Don’t trash it and throw it away, because the right to read and the freedom of press goes right in the trash with it.