20 minute read
OPINION/Mwangi
Join the online conversation at www.dailynorthwestern.com
Advertisement
DUNCAN MWANGI
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
My last two years at Northwestern have taught me that humanities professors — who are some of the best faculty on campus — might be the biggest threat to tree coverage everywhere.
Humanities professors are good people. They’re excited to help you know and understand the things they’re passionate about. They don’t have a fit when you ask for accommodations or even to take time for yourself. As someone who regularly benefits from their unwavering support, I am always under the impression they must be ancient people because of their level of patience.
Many of them appear to be fellow flaming homosexuals who probably enjoy nature on their weekends off. They probably pull off great weekend fits, and they always know what TikTok sounds the kids are obsessed with — like Steve Buscemi holding a skateboard in the “How do you do fellow kids?” meme.
While some of these professors seemingly drink from a fountain of youth, when it comes to tech, they might be the children we left behind. One reason: they still like paper. While STEM professors utilize a host of interactive programs for their communication and assignment needs, humanities professors will insist on paper. Lots and lots of it. They want you to print readings and assignments. Some will even dare you to use a pen in class.
I’m not a consistently green person. I’m
also not the most tech savvy person. I’ve been in and out of beginner coding spaces for a total of five years now, and have come out of each space feeling like I have a bag of rocks for a head. I tend to feel like a stranger in the room, so I either overshare and overcompensate — just like professors who don’t want to be alone in a classroom.
In my first quarter at NU, I was determined not to bring a laptop to class, so I wouldn’t get distracted. I also tried to get through class without looking at my phone, but that became more impossible with each new iPhone software update. I often carry folders of earmarked pages in my bag from ghosts of classes passed. I don’t even know why I’m complaining, I might as well be just as old.
In a sense, humanities professors are kind of my people. Do I like them giving me paper? No. Do I like that they give me a break? Always. Some have probably known what it’s like to feel stupid confronting math or science, or have probably needed a lot of grace to get through a class. Or maybe they haven’t — they do look smart and confident.
I’m also not saying STEM professors are perfect; their hell looks worse to me. I can barely sit through a STEM class without being assaulted by the thought of going back to bed. While I’m not foreclosing on the possibility that I might one day receive a tech awakening, this side of the fence has given me better days. I will stay here and take my deep long breaths, awaiting greener pasture.
So will humanities professors ever stop handing out paper? Maybe not. I can live with that. Stack that paper all the way to the ceiling and plop it on my desk like Mr. Crocker giving Timmy Turner his homework. Let Shell come up with a better PR strategy for their green issues. Let Greta Thunberg miss some algebra and cross the ocean on a shoe like Thumbelina across a pond to yell at people in suits. I might even have to retract my statement accusing humanities professors of choking nature’s lungs.
It’s the third week of class, and I already have a sheaf of papers. More will eventually find home on my desk and rock in silence every night to the radiator’s breeze. Bring on the unpredictable chaos.
- DUNCAN MWANGI, Op-Ed Contributor In a sense, humanities professors are kind of my people. Do I like them giving me paper? No. Do I like that they give me a break? Always.
- DUNCAN MWANGI, Op-Ed Contributor
Duncan Mwangi is a Medill junior. He can be contacted at duncanmwangi2024@u.northwestern.edu. If you would like to respond publicly to this op-ed, send a Letter to the Editor to opinion@dailynorthwestern.com. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.
Reif: Instead of a new Ryan Field, consider Soldier Field
RICHARD REIF
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Why does Northwestern plan to spend a nine-figure fortune to redesign its football stadium with a seating capacity one-quarter lower than it currently holds?
I raise this question after learning my alma mater wants to spend up to $800 million for a renovated Ryan Field with 35,000 seats — 12,000 fewer than its current capacity. That’s comparable to a homeowner spending lavishly to downsize a house from eight to six rooms. $480 million of the renovation’s cost was earmarked in a donation from alumni Pat and Shirley Ryan, the field’s namesakes. That means NU must raise another $320 million in funds via donations, a bond issue or other means, to finance Ryan Field’s extensive facelift.
Funding isn’t the only obstacle to overcome. Residents of Evanston’s 7th Ward, where Ryan Field is located, have raised complaints about noise, transit and parking problems where the Wildcats play their home games. Many aren’t happy about hosting a renovated stadium in their neighborhood and City Council has yet to approve the planned project. If it does, the construction process is projected to bring 2,900 new jobs and $10 million in fee revenue to Evanston, according to the University.
Because NU faces some stiff headwinds on this project, why not consider an alternative site? I propose Soldier Field, full-time home of the Chicago Bears since 1971. The Bears now lease Soldier Field from the Chicago Park District under an agreement that runs through 2033. But, they can exit the lease in 2026 by paying a fee of $84 million, according to the Chicago Tribune. Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is trying to persuade the Bears to remain at Soldier Field. She proposed expanding its capacity to 70,000 “total seats including additional fan activation areas.” If the Bears elect to leave, she has a “Plan B” that includes inviting other teams to play there.
While many issues must be worked out, I think NU should consider Soldier Field as a new home for the Wildcats, even if the Bears decide to remain there. The Wildcats play nearly all home games on Saturday, while the Bears, like all NFL teams, play mainly on Sunday. Smart scheduling could resolve conflicts.
A 62,000-seat stadium will generate more revenue than one with 35,000 seats. But, that’s not the only reason NU’s football team should move there. The Wildcats promote themselves as “Chicago’s Big Ten Team’’ and have played some games at Wrigley Field under a partnership with the Cubs. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for “Chicago’s Big Ten Team’’ to play all of its home games in a football stadium that’s hosted an NFL team for decades? Not to mention, NU also has a history with Soldier Field, having played in the first collegiate football game to be hosted at the stadium, in 1924. Playing there would bolster NU’s growing relationship with Chicago.
But the most important reason for choosing Soldier Field is the potential for savings. I don’t know how much the Chicago Park District will charge NU to lease the site, but I’m certain it will be considerably less than $800 million over a multi-year period of time. NU could use the money saved for other vital purposes, such as expanding student housing, increasing student financial aid, adding staff to the Counseling and Psychological Services and providing food and winter clothing for those low income students who need more of both.
One drawback to using Soldier Field is its distance from NU’s Evanston campus, compared to Ryan Field’s location. But NU can solve that problem by chartering buses. Students can also take the Chicago Transit Authority, Uber, Lyft or other ride sharing services to Soldier Field.
Some students and faculty might object to this move, but the biggest howls of protest may come from alumni who fondly recall watching the Wildcats play at Ryan Field, or Dyche Stadium, as it was originally named. I enjoyed many Saturday afternoons there while I was a Medill graduate student, 196264. But, evoking past pleasures does not justify endorsing future expenses.
Construction for a redesigned Ryan Field is scheduled to start after the 2023 football season ends and is targeted for completion by the start of the 2026 season. That gives NU’s Board of Trustees ample time to seriously consider and thoroughly evaluate Soldier Field as an alternate site for the Wildcats football team. Not all of the Daily’s readers will agree with me, but I hope those who do will make their voices heard.
Editor in Chief Jacob Fulton My alma mater wants to spend up to $800 million for a renovated Ryan Field with 35,000 seats — 12,000 fewer than its current capacity. That’s comparable to a homeowner spending lavishly to downsize a house from eight to six rooms.
- RICHARD REIF, Op-Ed Contributor
The Daily Northwestern
Volume 144, Issue 05
Managing Editors
Isabel Funk
Angeli Mittal
Maia Pandey
Jorja Siemons Opinion Editor Kadin Mills Richard Reif is a Medill alum. He can be contacted at Dick.Reif@gmail.com. If you would like to respond publicly to this op-ed, send a Letter to the Editor to opinion@dailynorthwestern. com. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.
Assistant Opinion Editor Colin Crawford
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR may be sent to 1999 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208, via fax at 847-491-9905, via e-mail to opinion@dailynorthwestern.com or by dropping a letter in the box outside The Daily office. Letters have the following requirements: • Should be typed • Should be double-spaced • Should include the author’s name, signature, school, class and phone number. • Should be fewer than 300 words They will be checked for authenticity and may be edited for length, clarity, style and grammar. Letters, columns and cartoons contain the opinion of the authors, not Students Publishing Co. Inc. Submissions signed by more than three people must include at least one and no more than three names designated to represent the group. Editorials reflect the majority opinion of The Daily’s student editorial board and not the opinions of either Northwestern University or Students Publishing Co. Inc.
Northwestern's Organization of Women Faculty and 205 women faculty urge President Schill and the Board of Trustees to reassess and course correct the current direction of priorities and investment at Northwestern.
Dear President Schill and Mr. Barris,
The Organization of Women Faculty (OWF) is excited to welcome you to your new leadership positions at Northwestern. We would like to meet with you this fall to discuss the matters we raise in this letter.
We are pleased to see inclusion prioritized in President Schill’s welcome message to the Northwestern community. We look forward to working together, as President Schill succinctly put it, to “enhance diversity in all of its forms and to foster a sense of belonging and respect.” In that spirit, and in this moment of leadership transition, we wish to start a new conversation about advancements for women faculty. In Spring 2022 we solicited feedback from our membership, which suggested there is much to be done. In this letter we identify areas of concern and offer concrete suggestions that can aid your work to take Northwestern to the next level, and that can be part of an ongoing collaboration for positive change.
Double whammy: a Northwestern financial crisis followed by a global pandemic
The COVID pandemic and the social upheaval triggered by George Floyd’s murder created many leadership challenges in our community. Faculty stepped up to meet the needs of students even when it meant putting research and other priorities on hold, even as our own health, childcare, and eldercare situations stretched many of us to our limit. We were patient as University leaders made decisions in a context of great uncertainty.
When the pandemic hit, Northwestern had already been in austerity mode for two years because of financial mismanagement, over-building, and overspending. Northwestern’s credit rating dropped. Most departments and schools were required to make painful budget cuts in AY 2018-2019. On the eve of the pandemic, salaries had been modestly rising at rates that barely, if at all, matched inflation. Major merit achievements that would normally have been rewarded financially did not necessarily lead to salary increases. Faculty hiring and retention efforts were limited. Then by late 2019, we received the good news that these extreme measures had led to an easing of the financial crisis, and we were looking forward to the resumption of a more normal state of affairs.
Then the pandemic arrived, and the University’s response was to safeguard the budget rather than to draw on the endowment to preserve the University’s human resources. This response led to furloughing and firing staff, freezing salaries, and seizing faculty retirement benefits, all while asking faculty and the scaled-back staff to address the exigencies of the pandemic with more (and often uncompensated) work. We did not immediately protest. In fact, faculty and staff demonstrated extraordinary commitment to the University by stepping up quickly to move teaching and research activities online, to support our students within and outside the classroom as their own challenges and needs increased, and to endure a benefits reduction that we were told would limit staff layoffs.
By December 2020, the University reported a budget surplus, which surprised us. The stock market also boomed, resulting in a 7% growth in the endowment in fiscal year 2020, and 37% growth in fiscal year 2021. The University's finances emerged from the pandemic stronger, healthy, and thriving. But this seemed to come at the expense of the wellbeing of faculty, staff, and students who emerged fatigued, underpaid, and unwell. The University remained in austerity mode with salary increases that did not keep up with inflation, and budgetary approaches that hurt hiring and retention.
At the beginning of fiscal year 2021, Provost Kathleen Hagerty announced the following measures as an initial return to normalcy and an attempt to recoup pandemic losses: • Addressing the decline in faculty salaries by growing the salary pool. The plan was a 6% increase in the faculty salary pool over two years. • We were told that tax rules made refunding the seized benefits very complicated. We were given a small “bonus” as a thanks for our hard work, but these taxable funds did not make up for the retirement funds that were seized. • Ongoing efforts and policy changes were being made to fill the unprecedented, yet self-inflicted, staff vacancies.
The Faculty Senate’s May 12, 2021 query as to why the pandemic was exceptional enough to require a suspension of faculty benefits but was not considered a “once in a century” event that would merit a special draw from the endowment has gone unanswered.
As we enter the fourth academic year affected by the pandemic, the University’s return to financial health has barely, if at all, translated into the resumption of normal salary, hiring, and staffing levels. A real decline in faculty and staff salaries continues, and recruitment efforts for new faculty and staff are hampered by below-market rate salaries. All of this translates into a reality in which faculty are spending time and energy doing the work of staff who are no longer there to support research and teaching efforts. OWF’s Spring 2020 and Spring 2022 faculty surveys show faculty are deferring new and ambitious research and pedagogy efforts because of a lack of support. Faculty are also directly and indirectly burdened by an underinvestment in Northwestern’s mental health and accessibility support systems for students. Research has shown that these burdens are typically not felt equally by all faculty, and tend to exacerbate many existing gender, racial, and status inequities. Meanwhile, the endowment has grown significantly, and the university is poised to invest a significant amount in yet another round of upgrades to sports facilities. Although current inflationary conditions raise fears of loss of endowment revenue, we question whether the 40% increase in the endowment over the last two years will be eaten away completely by inflation. We further note that while faculty raises have not kept pace with inflation, administration salaries have increased above the rate of inflation. The University and top-level administrators may have recovered from years of austerity and the pandemic, but the faculty and staff are still living amid a long chain of losses that affect us professionally and personally every day.
The message that University leadership actions and words have conveyed
Faculty are grateful for the steps the administration took to help the wider community stay safe during the pandemic. Provost Hagerty has been extraordinarily responsive to the OWF’s Fall 2020 Call for Action. Communication about needed assistance improved as the pandemic unfolded. The Provost’s Faculty Pandemic Impact Response Task Force played a critical role in thinking ahead to avoid even greater future losses.
Yet faculty feel a serious gap between the stated commitment of the University to research and teaching, and the actions and intentions toward growing the endowment and the pattern of quite lavish investments in athletic facilities. While the Provost has introduced concrete steps to address the problems we have raised, we also learned that there is a limit to what can be done given the many deferred maintenance and construction projects that must come from the operating budget. We are concerned that there seems to be no plan to deal with the exceptional situations imposed on faculty, produced first by the University’s self-created financial crisis, then by the COVID-19 pandemic, and now because of numerous building and maintenance projects that are taking priority.
It is time to reassess and course correct
The President and the Board of Trustees together set financial priorities and steer fundraising to where investments are most needed. We are asking for a serious reassessment of Northwestern’s goals and priorities. It is important that appropriate funding is directed to empowering faculty to do our best teaching and research in an environment that also prioritizes our wellbeing and signals respect from the Board of Trustees and the Central Administration.
Our concrete suggestions include the following: • A clear statement of academic priorities that is backed with resources to support faculty and staff in their teaching and research. • A special draw from the endowment so that necessary infrastructure maintenance and ongoing building project expenses do not compete with resources needed to support the University’s academic mission and faculty salaries. • Creation of a special salary pool to remediate salary inequalities, especially given the extra student and familial caregiving that fell disproportionately on women faculty, international faculty, and faculty of color during the pandemic. • A greater effort to ensure that spending on sports facilities is dual use. On-site childcare would provide much-needed relief to many faculty and staff. The redevelopment of Ryan Field provides an opportunity to remediate this omission by creating a childcare facility in the new stadium.
We also ask to begin a conversation between faculty and the President and Board of Trustees chair through the following methods: • A listening tour by the President and Board of Trustees Chair to meet with faculty to learn about concerns, priorities and potential investments. • A new faculty survey that includes consulting faculty about areas of existing under-investment and that sufficiently differentiates the wide range of faculty experiences and needs so that the University may create more nuanced ways to empower all of us. • A resumption of the 2016 Provost’s Pay-Equity study that, this time, also investigates the over-time growth rates of faculty pay at Northwestern by gender. • A move beyond aggregate assessments wherein the salaries of male dominated disciplines (economics, medicine, business, law) are presumed to imply that Northwestern salaries are competitive. We need a by-discipline study and report of NU salaries compared with peer institutions.
Thank you in advance for your attention to these matters. Please let us know when you are available to meet with our Steering Committee to discuss these ideas further. We also invite you to address the Organization of Women Faculty directly in an event that we can help coordinate.
Signed, Co-Chairs of OWF: Karen J. Alter, Yarrow Axford, Lisa M. Del Torto, Leslie Harris
Steering Committee of OWF: Megan Bang, Katharine Breen, Stephanie Edgerly, Laurel Harbridge-Yong, Angela Y. Lee, Janice Mejia, Ann Shola Orloff, Ursula Porod, Deborah Tuerkheimer, Doreen Weisenhaus
and 191 additional women faculty
Students, brands partner for social media marketing
By JOCELYN MINTZ the daily northwestern @jocie_mintz
Weinberg junior Alina Fernandez has always loved drinking Celsius, a fruit-flavored energy drink, before her workouts. So when the company asked her to apply for a brand ambassador role, the answer was easy.
“I drink (Celsius) literally every day — I genuinely enjoy the brand and the flavors,” Fernandez said. “So I figured, why not try and make some money off it?”
At campuses across the country, students like Fernandez partner with established brands to promote products and services on social media. Students say brand ambassadorships offer them opportunities to network, improve their social media presence and make extra cash.
Celsius initially reached out to Fernandez after she posted several videos featuring the drink on her TikTok account. After a brief application process, she now produces one main feed post and two story posts a month on Instagram.
Communication sophomore Grace Petersen signed up for the Youth Marketing Connection email list, which sends out brand opportunities. Over the summer, a position opened up with Samsung, so she sent in samples of her social media posts.
Petersen said she spreads brand awareness through social media posts and by engaging in conversations about Samsung with the student body. “As a college student, you have the capital to reach a really wide number of people on campus,” Petersen said. “It’s really smart that these brands are (seeking out) students.”
Communication sophomore Zack Owens said he applied to be a Bumble ambassador after his friend at another university recommended the job.
Owens now works with Bumble and said the job’s flexibility is one of its key selling points. Instead of working traditional shifts, he completes a list of monthly tasks from Bumble, including content creation.
Recently, Bumble has campaigned with state legislators to legally prohibit unsolicited nude photos, a move which Owens supports. He said he appreciates seeing the company taking action and making an impact.
“They don’t just talk the talk,” Owens said. “They actually put in the work to achieve their goals.”
Several other students at Northwestern are brand ambassadors through Bumble’s “Honey” college campus ambassador program. Owens said he loves the community of ambassadors because they can come together and organize events.
Petersen said one of the best parts of her job at Samsung is being able to connect to the NU community.
“I’ve had a really good time so far,” Petersen said. “It’s pretty easy, and it’s social media, which I feel is something that’s really natural for everyone our age.”
jocelynmintz2025@u.northwestern.edu
Illustration by Eliana Storkamp
