21 October 2019

Student Services (6.10%)

Public Services (3.60%)

Interest Payments (3.30%)

Maintenance (7.70%)

Instruction (28.90%)

Research (8.20%)

Institutional Support Academic Support (14.40%)

Auxiliary Enterprises (17.80%)

Suggested budgetary changes Suggested change to

by Dr. Matt Hendricks Instruction to 33.0% (TU Professor of Economics)

Hendricks talk finds budgetary flaws — p. 2

Faculty senate proposes alternative cuts – p. 3 Politics and Sports – p. 6 Saying the president’s name lessens his effect – p. 10 Busy Philipps speaks at Magic City Books – p. 13

Graphic by Naomi Dunn

The Collegian: 2

News

21 October 2019

Research calls into question administration spending Dr. Matt Hendricks’s talk on Wednesday criticized TU’s financial policy while proposing a way to fix the issues.

Chris Lierly Commentary Editor

was dubbed “administrative inefficiency”

by Hendricks.

The concept of administrative efficiency is based upon the amount of money that should theoretically be allocated to instruction at a university, specifically considering

In terms of administrative efficiency rate, TU has a -5.15 rate according to Hendricks, which puts it a ranking of 338 in the country.

For reference, the top-five schools in administrative efficiency have rates that all exceed +13.00, or 49 percent of their spending.

Lindsey Prather Student Writer On Wednesday, Oct. 23, Professor of Economics Dr. Matt Hendricks gave a lecture on the University of Tulsa’s financial standing entitled, “Where Has The Money Gone?: Disturbing Trends in TU Financial Data.” This talk took place during the final days of the 30-day window during which the Faculty Senate was required to formulate a plan that would lower instructional costs at TU. Beyond being an Associate Professor of Economics. Hendricks is an expert on education financial policy.

Beginning with a general overview of TU’s finances, Hendricks introduced the presentation by providing a breakdown regarding how TU spends its money. Hendricks based his work on data from the Delta Cost Project, a branch of the American Institutes for Research. The data draws from the federal Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, which aggregates required data from institutions that receive federal funding.

The data on this website only spans 2007-2015; however, the same information is publicly available from other sources through 2017. This was later added manually by Hendricks using TU’s reported numbers and Delta Cost Project’s guidelines and featured throughout the lecture.

According to Hendricks, the most category of most significance is instructional expenses. Instructional expenses primarily include faculty salaries, as well as the overall costs to keep programs open and running.

TU spends approximately 29 percent of its budget on instructional expenses. Hendricks contextualized this spending with three other major areas of spending: “auxiliary enterprises” (18 percent), “academic support” (14 percent) and “institutional support” (10 percent).

Hendricks then elaborated on some of the major findings produced by his research.

The earliest conclusion presented is that, “TU is amongst the worst universities in the country in terms of the percent of expenditures allocated to instruction.” TU ranked 422 out of 467 schools for instructional spending, in the bottom ten percent among the 467 comparable schools considered.

The next topic involved another trend that is reinforced by the data: “From 2007-2017, TU has continually siphoned funds away from instruction and student services and into other areas.’” This decrease translates into a 3.2 percent drop in overall instruction costs, as well as a 2.5 percent drop in Student Services spending that amounted to a decrease of $3.5 million.

According to Hendricks, the problematic budgetary areas are “academic support” — which notably includes administrative bodies such as the Provost and Deans’ offices — and “auxiliary expenses,” which account for dependents such as the Gilcrease museum and athletics. The former category, academic support, is accountable for a problem that

graphics by Matt Hendricks Data on the University of Tulsa’s spending on institutional, auxilary enterprise and academic support spending, the latter two of which Matt Hendricks believes should be cut by 9.8 million and 8.7 million, respectively.

factors such as its size, research status and revenue. The difference between this hypothetical number and the actual amount spent constituted an institution’s “administrative efficiency.”

The last section of Hendricks’s lecture focused on a possible solution to the financial predicament that has intensified in the last decade. He proposes that instead of cutting instruction costs, this area should receive a

$3.5 million boost in spending. Additionally, cuts should be implemented to the areas of academic support and institutional costs, to such an extent that any balancing of the budget should come at their expense.

Immediately after the lecture, The Collegian reached out to Kevan Buck, who has been the Executive VP of Finance since 2000, for comment. When asked about whether there were any problems with Hendrick’s data or conclusions, Buck replied: “Professor Hendricks’s research was very thorough – although incomplete. The biggest concern with his presentation and the strong reaction from some faculty is that the data is old and reflects spending decisions under previous university administrations.

It also fails to include the most recent financial information which we think will serve to enhance his reports.

Buck continued, “We hope to work with him over the next month to share the necessary data. We appreciate Professor Hendricks’s work, will review his findings and are eager to continue our work on making improvements in critical areas such as instructional spending that will make a difference in our students’ experience.”

When presented with Buck’s concerns regarding which administration is responsible for these issues, Hendricks replied, “The fact is the Levit/Clancy administration is attempting to do exactly the opposite of what they should do. They need to increase instructional spending — not decrease it. I don’t care if it’s a problem created by an old administrator. They need to fix it. And they need to fix it now.”

This claim made by Hendricks is based on the repeated insistence of the administration to cut instructional costs; True Commitment was a massive cut to instruction, and the Faculty Senate was allowed to provide an alternative to TC under the stipulation that all cuts must come from instruction.

In another instance, Hendricks also responded to Kevan Buck’s appreciation of his work: “They haven’t worked with me at all. In fact they turned down my offer to help back in August 2018. Instead, they decided to again make the problem worse by hiring an expensive consultant that clearly didn’t give them the correct information.”

Hendricks is referring to EAB, a consultant group that has previously been contracted by TU as an advisor on academic programs and organization structures.

After offering his help in August 2018, Hendricks says, “I wasn’t interviewed for the PPRC,” but that “Provost Levit responded to my email by setting a meeting between me and John Bury,” wherein Hendricks was “basically told thanks but no thanks.”

Hendricks says he didn’t think much of this until he “realized the administration was making serious mistakes that could severely damage TU’s ability to attract students and donors in the future.”

The most recent data is currently unavailable, but when taken at face value, Hendricks’s conclusions paint a picture of misplaced priorities, especially when contrasted with comparable universities. Although it may be true that the numbers communicate the priorities of previous administrations, the same austerity-like approach to instructional costs has been communicated by the current one. This is evident in both the original True Commitment plan as well as the offer made to the Faculty Senate by the Board a little less than a month ago.

Tulsa celebrates its roots in third Native American Day Tulsans of all ages ate local food, listened to speakers and learned from the different cultures that live in the area.

Skylar Fuser Student Writer On Monday, Oct. 14, cities throughout Oklahoma observed Native American Day, and Tulsa’s celebrations exceeded expectations. Tulsa officially adopted Native American Day as a holiday in 2017, and this year marked the third annual celebration.

Speakers, dancers, artists and more represented their respective tribes at Guthrie Green on Monday. Mayor G. T. Bynum spoke, as well as leaders from multiple tribes, including the Muscogee Creek Nation, the Cherokee Nation, the Osage Nation, the Kaw Nation and the Pawnee Nation, all discussing what this day means to them.

Students from all around Tulsa and of all ages were present, either through field trips or with friends and family. The speakers at this event made sure to impart to these students how important this event is to Oklahoma’s history. By choosing to celebrate Native American heritage during this holiday, the United States is now respecting these tribes’ cultures rather than ignoring or attempting to eliminate them.

photo courtesy Facebook/Tulsa Native American Day Two women at the Tulsa Native American Day parade with red hands over their mouths, representing murdered and missing indigenous women.

The parade began at noon and featured groups representing the many unique tribes of Oklahoma. The Pride of Sequoyah marching band was one highlight of this parade, bringing energy and liveliness to the event.

Vendors sold food throughout the day, one truck featuring Indian tacos on fry bread and Indian nachos. All sorts of refreshments were offered at the event, as well as Guthrie Green being surrounded by great restaurants on all sides.

Native American Day, as it is observed in Tulsa, has begun to replace what had previously been Columbus Day in cities all over the United States. In cities that still uphold Columbus Day or have active commemorations of him such as statues, there has been retaliation.

Columbus Day, which celebrates Christopher Columbus’s date of arrival into the new world, has faced ongoing criticism in recent years. The holiday has been criticized

for uplifting a man who caused the deaths and severe mistreatment of thousands of Native Americans. As time progresses, people all over the United States are beginning to intentionally acknowledge this idea and choose to create instead a holiday that celebrates Native American history and culture.

Also known as Indigenous Peoples’ Day in many areas, Native American Day aims to celebrate culture and educate the public on Native American contributions, specifically to the tribes that originated in the city or state that the celebration takes place in.

This regionality makes the event special to attendees in their respective cities, and the holiday hits close to home for many who choose to observe it.

Tulsa’s celebration was informative for many onlookers, as there are many groups and resources for Native Americans all over the city that many do not know about. These include the Native American Student Association and the Tulsa Native Youth Board.

The ability to see these groups and their ongoing contributions to the city was uplifting to many that were present at this year’s event.

Native American Day in Tulsa is still a very young event, and its growth each year continues to inspire the Native American community all around the city. It is important for communities to celebrate this event and recognize the contributions of the many native peoples that helped the state of Oklahoma become what it is today.

21 October 2019

News

The Collegian: 3

Faculty Senate approves alternative program cuts The new changes will be presented to the Board of Trustees on Nov. 4 and 5 for final approval.

Chris Lierly Commentary Editor Lindsey Prather Student Writer

In their monthly meeting on Thursday, Oct. 17, the University of Tulsa’s Faculty Senate presented their alternative to True Commitment. In accordance to the terms offered by the Board of Trustees and administration, the Senate developed a plan that could potentially net $2.5 million in savings and did so just before the Oct. 21 deadline.

Their resolution outlined the new academic cuts to be proposed to the board in lieu of the full rollout of TC, and reaffirmed the right of the Faculty Senate to be consulted in the future regarding such monumental changes at TU. The resolution itself presents the plan through the lens of one primary concern: the state of shared governance at the University of Tulsa. This appears to be correlated with the problems that were the subject of the Faculty Senate meeting on Sept. 9, in which the senators voted that the administration and Board of Trustees violated Article VI of their constitution, which would require the approval of the Faculty Senate for sweeping institutional changes.

Item (1) of the resolution states that “the [Faculty] Senate endorses the program cuts and revenue-generating investments identified in Appendix 1 of this resolution” so long as “the administration adheres to the requirements set forth in items (2) and (3).”

Those items are the most contentious, considering previous conflicts between Faculty Senate and administration.

Item (2) states that “if the administration wishes to implement additional portions of the True Commitment plan,” then “all proposed actions shall first be considered by the appropriate…committees and be presented to the full Senate prior to being implemented or submitted to the Board of Trustees for a vote.”

Item (3) states that “the University shall complete a review and audit of administra-

tive expenses at the University, including the category of Academic Support, and present the results to the Senate upon completion.”

The latter two items specifically address the fact that the administration did not abide by the guidelines of shared governance laid out in the Faculty Senate constitution, as well as the fact that the Faculty Senate was not allowed to take into account administrative costs when proposing this alternative plan.

In addition to this attempted redress, the resolution most importantly describes the cost-cutting measures that will be proposed as an alternative to the more broad cuts that were announced on April 11, 2019. This new proposal advocates for the closure of 49 percent of the programs that were initially tapped for removal under True Commitment; these new cuts were approved by their departments and will work in tandem with other cost-cutting measures proposed in the resolution to lower instructional costs to meet the stipulations given by the board.

Some of the most notable cuts approved by the Faculty Senate on Thursday were

nifer Airey sent a joint statement over email outlining the timeline going forward: “We will prepare an opening statement and draft proposal to deliver to the Board on Monday” and would “workshop the details of the proposal with the administration in preparation for the Oct. 28 meeting with the Executive Committee of the Board.”

All of this will lead up to Nov. 4 and 5 when the newly proposed changes will be presented to the full board. Faculty Senate leadership went on to say that they “will then bring any and all results of our negotiations to the Senate for ratification in November’s meeting.”

When asked whether the administration would comply with Item (2)’s requirement — that any additional parts of True Commitment must be presented to the Faculty Senate before implementation — Faculty Senate President Scott Holmstrom stated, “I am very confident that the recommendations from the ad hoc college task forces…will be shared with the Faculty Senate for our review and comment prior to implementation or presentation to the Board.”

“A notable point is that 50 percent of the program cuts that were originally recommended in True Commitment are not present on this list.” those to Bachelor’s degrees in deaf education, international business and language, information technology and geology. Multiple minors in the language and business departments were approved for closure as well as graduate degrees across all colleges, except the Oxley College of Health Sciences. A notable point is that 50 percent of the program cuts that were originally recommended in True Commitment are not present on this list.

Program cuts were not the only changes approved by the resolution. The appendix also includes some additional measures that would yield some degree of financial relief.

These actions include the redesign of programs such as the physics and chemistry PhDs and the theatre BA, the removal of the course cap and a pledge to digitize syllabi to save paper.

After the meeting, Faculty Senate President Scott Holstrom and Vice President Jen-

However, regarding the other points of contention, Holmstrom conceded, “We’ll have to wait and see on other aspects of True Commitment, namely program closures, course minimums, capacities and teaching loads. Most of these issues are being considered by the Faculty Senate standing committees, which will likely result in resolutions coming out of the Senate.”

This resolution passed by the Faculty Senate concludes a contentious 30-day period in which faculty sought to synthesize a workable alternative to True Commitment.

For the first time in six months, there is clarity regarding the origins of this plan as well as its desired outcome. Although this alternative provides relief for the critics of True Commitment, it also poses an important question: why hasn’t this cooperation been present all along?

Faculty-proposed changes: Voluntary program closures (49% of total slated for closure) Media studies - centralizing media production tech Remove top course cap Go paperless on handouts, syllabi Eliminate College Philanthropy Institute project funding Eliminate Shark Tank grants Redesigned Chemistry PhD Redesigned Physics PhD Redesigned Theatre programs Distributed Excellent/ Intrapreneurship proposal Re-extend retirement package Media studies: creation of summer online classes to satisfy block 2 credit

Closures approved by departments: Deaf Education B.A.D.E. Digital Studies Minor Ancient Greek Minor Latin Minor Linguistics Minor Portuguese Minor Classical Studies Minor Energy Business for business students Minor Energy Business for ENS students Minor Energy and Environmental Resources Mgt Minor International Business and Language B.S.I.B.L. Not-for-profit Administration Minor Information Technology B.S.I.T. Geology B.A. Art M.A. Fine Arts M.F.A. Master’s in Education Mathematics and Science Education M.S.M.S.E. Education M.A. Teaching Arts M.T.A. Women’s and Gender Studies M.A. Masters of Science in Global Energy M.S.G.E. Finance M.S. Quantitative Finance M.S. Mathematics Ph.D. American Law and Indigenous Law L.L.M. American Law for Foreign Lawyers L.L.M. Engineering Physics M.S.

Candidates struggle to stay relevant in a closening race In what The New York Times calls the biggest presidential primary debate in history, 12 candidates fight against one another for time.

Zach Short Student Writer The debate was nothing if not tense on Wednesday night. The first topic was impeachment, and the moderators did well to work their way down from the highest pollsters to the lowest. However, it didn’t take long for the pressure to build for Elizabeth Warren, as she now appears to be the frontrunner in the polls.

She was asked early in the debate if her health care plan would raise taxes on the middle class, a big concern for those who are wary of the idea of Medicare-for-all, and it turned out to be quite the tough question. The Massachusetts senator insisted on saying only that “costs” would go down for middle class families, carefully dancing around how taxes would be affected.

Pete Buttigieg criticized her refusal to speak in reference directly to taxes and applauded Bernie Sanders for being able to admit that his plan would raise taxes.It didn’t take long for Amy Klobuchar to hop in and criticize Warren for much of the same thing and the early moment did well to set the tone for the rest of the debate as it was most certainly not the last time a candidate

attempted to bring her down a bit.

Joe Biden was even a bit more daring than he had been in previous debates, continuing to allude to the days that Barack Obama was in office but with more willingness to go head-to-head with other people on stage. He too went after Warren in a somewhat controversial moment.

After Warren spoke of her part in the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Biden got a little animated, feeling as though his role in the creation of the unit had been overlooked.

Perhaps even more controversially, she also heavily criticized the “mainstream media” for their depiction of her and directly called out the sponsors of the event, CNN and The New York Times. If taking on one of the president’s favorite targets wasn’t enough, she also consistently took the most radical anti-conflict stance, bringing up concerns from Buttigieg, the only other veteran on the stage.

Steyer was not as radical, keeping a mostly optimistic viewpoint and a kind attitude toward his competitors, mentioning

“... many responses appeared as attempts to simply find the right thing to say to gain serious favor in the polls.”

The moment has been criticized, both for the ambiguity of how much Biden actually helped, if at all, in what is typically an accomplishment attributed to Warren and for how he raised his voice and turned with a pointed hand to address Warren on the matter.

As for the interlocutors that missed the last debate, Tulsi Gabbard and Tom Steyer were both unique presences on the stage.

Gabbard had been in the earlier debates but didn’t yet have the polling numbers for the last debate. She definitely picked up some attention this time, as she talked earlier in the week about potentially boycotting the event because of an apparent “rigging” of the primary race by Democratic Party.

how happy he was to be on the stage finally and how anyone on the stage would be better than the current president. His most memorable moment was potentially when he was asked, as the only billionaire on the stage, how he felt about the possibility of billionaires being taxed out of existence.

However, his response seemed to go over well with the crowd when he responded simply that he wasn’t worried and that he probably should be paying quite a bit more in taxes.

For many of the other candidates though, it was still about trying to gain a little more name recognition by championing popular Democratic ideals. Kamala Harris turned a question on how healthcare would be pro-

vided for people into a discussion of the attacks on women’s reproductive care, and Cory Booker used his following speaking slot to refer back to the moment and applaud Harris for bringing up the issue.

Andrew Yang got to lead the discussion on the automation of jobs with another quick discussion of his plan for a Universal Basic Income, and Beto O’Rourke got the chance to defend his plan for a mandatory buyback of certain assault rifles.

The only candidate without a big jumpout moment was Julián Castro who had a relatively neutral performance. Outside of the highest polling candidates and their harshest critics, many responses appeared as attempts to simply find the right thing to say to gain serious favor in the polls.

For the lower-polling candidates, the need to gain attention is imperative. The next debate is slated for Nov. 20 and has stiffer requirements — only eight candidates have qualified so far. Those from last night who have not yet qualified are Julián Castro, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke and Tulsi Gabbard, all of which who have reached the donor requirement but not the polling requirement. There are also seven declared candidates who have not yet met either qualification; however, they have all been absent for a few debates now if not from all debates.

It should be interesting to see who qualifies for the next debate, but it may still be a very long time before a final candidate is chosen.

Bike thefts on campus and how to prevent them Although students have reported nine bicycles stolen so far this semester, thefts have reduced substantially since last year.

Brayden McCoy Student Writer Only about two months into the semester and students across campus can be heard complaining about their bike going missing.

While a multitude of bike thefts have gone unreported, the current official number of bicycles reported stolen is nine according to Campus Security Report.

However, according to Campus Security, while general theft is at a shocking low compared to the last calendar year. Bicycle theft is filed under a general “theft” cat-

egory. For the first nine months of calendar year 2019, there have only been 36 reports of theft, while there were 66 cases during the first nine months of 2018.

Speaking of 2018, the number of bikes reported stolen during the first nine months totals out to a shocking 45. Seven of those thefts took place during January alone, which is a large disparity when compared to the mere nine that have been reported stolen in the last two months.

Interestingly, there have been no reports of stolen tires or attempted bicycle thefts these last few months.In the first nine months of 2018, however, there were two attempted bike larcenies and two cases of stolen tires. Many bikes are usually reported missing or stolen at the end of each semester or year as well. This usually occurs as students are getting their items in order to go home and notice the bike is gone.

A few of the stolen bikes have already been recovered this year by Campus Security or the Tulsa Police Department (TPD).

Campus Security recovers the bicycles whenever they see non-TU people on or in possession of them. The TPD or other agencies notify Campus Security when someone is arrested and in possession of a TU bike, although they are most likely arrested for a different crime.

Campus Security is taking steps to ensure that bicycles are not stolen, and going by the data they are much more successful this year. Some of their ongoing efforts include constant campus patrols and advising students at orientation to use U-Bolt locks instead of the traditional, but weaker, chain type lock.

In the end, Campus Security can only do so much. The best way to ensure your bike is not stolen is to lock it up properly, use

a stronger lock and lock it up somewhere that is very visible. These steps make it that much more difficult to steal your bike so that most thieves wouldn’t bother.

Any student who is using a non-university provided bicycle should immediately have their bike registered with Parking and Card Services. This helps Campus Security in the event that your bike is stolen. It also lets them know not to impound the bike if it appears “abandoned.”

Bikes that appear abandoned and do not have registration are impounded by Campus Security. If the owner is not found, the bike may be donated to Tulsa Hub. Tulsa Hub is a local non-profit that teaches bicycling for transportation, refurbishes bikes and does follow-up support for members of the community in need.

The Collegian: 4

News

21 October 2019

10:30 a.m.

Officers impounded an ear bud piece of a headphone set found at the Physical Plant for safekeeping.

11:10 a.m.

An individual asked multiple officers to unlock a room inside Mabee Gym but was denied access after officers learned they did not have authorization. The individual loitered by the security office until a supervisor approached and they left the property.

Oct. 10 5:20 a.m.

Officers responded to Mayo Village for a report of a barking dog and attempted to make contact with the residents. No contact card was issued due to the residents not being at the apartment and the Housing Department was notified.

8 a.m.

An student’s wallet was stolen by two unknown females from a classroom at Oxley Health Sciences between 2:15 p.m. and 3:15 p.m. The victim realized the wallet was missing when notified by their bank of possible fraud activity.

8:20 a.m.

An employee’s wallet was stolen by two unknown females from a classroom at Oxley Health Sciences between 2:15 p.m. and 3:15 p.m. The victim realized the wallet was missing when notified by their bank of possible fraud activity.

9:30 a.m.

Two silver rings, found in the Mabee turf gym, were turned over to Campus Security and have been impounded for safe keeping.

Oct. 11 3 a.m.

Officers responded to report of a non-TU individual refusing to leave a student’s Mayo Village apartment. Officers detained the suspect and turned them over to Tulsa Police for arrest for trespassing and obstruction of justice. Officers also observed drug contraband in the student’s apartment in plain view and confiscated it as per policy for student misconduct (Refer to 1431-19).

3 a.m.

Officers confiscated drugs and paraphernalia from a student’s Mayo Village apartment while clearing an apartment for unwanted guests in response to a trespassing arrest (Refer to 1410-19 Trespassing Arrest). The drugs and paraphernalia had been left in plain view in the student’s bedroom.

10:10 p.m.

Officers made contact with an individual near the Reynolds Center. Officers determined the individual was not permitted to be on campus and escorted them off property. A contact card was created for this individuals to include the previous incident.

10:25 p.m.

Officers responded to a fire alarm at the Delta Delta Delta Sorority. Officers believed smoke coming from a heater and a malfunctioning smoke detector activated the fire alarm.

Tulsa Fire Department was canceled and a work order was placed for the smoke detector.

Oct. 12 12:50 a.m.

Officers responded to Hardesty Hall for a report of a heavily intoxicated underage student. Officers made contact with the intoxicated student sitting outside and determined the student did not require medical attention. Officers escorted the student to their residence and discovered empty beer bottles in the room. Housing staff were informed of the incident.

7:09 a.m.

A phone and purse were turned over to Security during the football game at Chapman Stadium where both owners reclaimed their property before the event ended.

11:20 a.m.

Officers responded to a fire alarm at Lafortune Hall. Burnt microwave popcorn activated a smoke detector. There was no fire or smoke in the building and Tulsa Fire was cancelled.

Oct. 13 7:20 p.m.

Officers conducted a pedestrian check at 8th St. and Gary Pl. after an individual reported suspicious activity. Officers issued a trespass warning and made the individual aware of campus boundaries. A contact card was created.

Chris Lierly Commentary Editor Lindsey Prather Student Writer Boris’s Brexit deal approved On Thursday, Oct. 17, the European Union Parliament approved U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s newest Brexit deal in a unanimous vote that sends it to the British Parliament for a vote. That deal will be considered during a special session on Saturday.

The deal prevents a hard border between EU member Ireland and Northern Ireland, and it details the way in which the UK will actually break away from the EU more than three years after the referendum that began this process. Johnson said after the vote that “This is a great deal for our country. I also believe it’s a very good deal for our friends in the EU.” On Saturday, Parliament delayed any decision on the PM’s newly approved deal until legislation to implement it had been passed. Johnson has promised that he “will not negotiate a delay with the EU,” and that he will meet the current deadline of Oct. 31.

However, the window to ask the EU for an extension is fast approaching, and the Prime Minister is also bound by law to negotiate an approved deal with the EU before Britain actually leaves the union.

Turkey/Kurds: five-day “ceasefire” On Oct. 17, Vice President Mike Pence announced that an agreement had been reached concerning a ceasefire between Turkey and Kurdish forces in northern Syria.

This took place following diplomatic talks in Ankara, Turkey. However, it has been relatively unclear to what extent the talks were successful, because both Turkish and Kurdish officials have already refuted the details of Pence’s remarks.

The primary point of contention is the nature of the temporary hold on the violence in Syria. Following the remarks from Pence, Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu insisted that this pause was not a cease-fire, but the establishment of a temporary safe zone. According to Cavusoglu, the concept of a ceasefire requires two “legitimate” parties reaching an agreement ─ the Turkish government does not want to assign legitimacy to the Kurdish forces. As of yet, it appears that even the establishment of this safe zone has been unsuccessful; according to the Associated Press, the pause lasted only a few hours before the violence continued.

UK diplomatic immunity case A resolution has yet to be reached following a deadly car accident involving Anne Saccolas, the wife of a U.S. diplomat, in the United Kingdom on Aug. 27. Saccolas was allegedly driving on the wrong side of the road when she struck and killed 19-year-old Harry Dunn, who was driving a motorcycle. Saccolas was questioned and released on the condition that she would remain in the country.

Instead, she opted to flee the U.K. while claiming a defense of diplomatic immunity.

The question of revoking diplomatic immunity is being debated, as well as the merits of diplomatic immunity and whether it applies in this particular situation. Although it is somewhat unclear whether Saccolas will be sent back to the U.K. to be investigated, President Donald Trump has indicated that her return is not an option. The present issue at hand is the prospect of justice for Dunn’s family; his parents have visited the United States in an attempt to lobby for her extradition.

8:30 p.m.

Officers conducted a pedestrian check on the North side of the Mabee Gym after an individual reported suspicious activity. Officers issued a trespass warning and made the individual aware of campus boundaries. A contact card was created.

9:05 p.m.

Officers responded to a noise complaint at a Mayo Village Apartment. Officers determined the noise was loud music from a residence and issued a housing contact card to the resident.

Oct. 14 5:55 a.m.

Officers conducted a pedestrian check at the Newman Center. The individual was a non TU affiliate. The individual was trespass warned and a contact card was created.

8:30 a.m.

Officers conducted a pedestrian check on two individuals.

The individuals were identified, and checked for previous contact and warrants. Both individuals had an active misdemeanor warrant and no previous contact. The individuals were warned for trespassing and contact cards were created.

1:45 p.m.

A non-TU affiliate and a TU contractor were involved in a non injury motor vehicle accident at the intersection of 6th and Colombia. Tulsa Police Department was contacted and the two parties exchanged insurance information. A non-TU affiliate and a TU contractor were involved in a non injury motor vehicle accident at the intersection of 6th and Colombia. Tulsa Police Department was contacted and the two parties exchanged insurance information.

2:19 p.m.

Officers towed a vehicle off campus from the University Square South Apartments Lot. A vehicle was found parked contrary to university policy and officers verified that the vehicle had been previously tow warned. Towing of the vehicle was authorized by the on-duty supervisor and the vehicle was towed off campus without incident.

10:35 p.m.

Officers attempted to stop a vehicle on South Tucker Drive.

The vehicle failed to stop and moved at an accelerated speed down University owned streets, failed to yield at multiple stop signs, and engaged in reckless driving until finally departing University property.

The Collegian does not produce or edit the Campus Crime Watch except for content and brevity.

Tuesday, Oct. 22 6 p.m. - 9 p.m.

H. A. Chapman Stadium Street Painting (Homecoming Night Three) Join us outside of the football stadium on Tuesday for our annual street painting competition! Paint and materials we be provided as well as pizza and homecoming shirts!

Wednesday, Oct. 23 5 p.m. - 8 p.m.

Allen Chapman Student Union Casino Night (Homecoming Night Four) Join us Wednesday night for Casino Night, an evening of food, games, and prizes!

Thursday, Oct. 24 3 p.m. - 5 p.m.

Dietler Commons

Bonfire Build Help us on Thursday as we build the annual TU Homecoming Bonfire! Students, Alumni, Family, and Friends are all welcome!

Thursday, Oct. 24 5 p.m. - 8 p.m.

Chapman Commons Trucks, Traditions, and Tulsa (Homecoming Night Five) Do you enjoy free food? Especially free food from local food trucks? Well then this is the event for you! Swing by for some noms and a chance to win a giveaway!

Friday, Oct. 25 3 p.m. - 4 p.m.

Oliphant Hall, Room 300 Biological Science Seminar Series “Developmental Origins of Stem Cell Specification in the Male Germline” presented by Dr. Jon Oatley, Center for Reproductive Biology, Washington State University Saturday, Oct. 26 12 p.m. - 4 p.m.

Hurricane Plaza

#Blackout175 Come celebrate ABC’s 50 years of service at TU and in the Tulsa community along with the 125 year anniversary of TU. The block party will celebrate our current members as well as alumni members. Join in the fun, free food, great entertainment and giveaways that will make for a memorable time before the Homecoming game.

Saturday, Oct. 26 6 p.m. - 7 p.m.

Sigma Chi House

Shave for the Cure During our Homecoming Tailgate, 14 brothers of Sigma Chi will be auctioning off their hair to raise money for the Huntsman Cancer Institute. If a person makes a donation to fund cancer research, then they will have the ability to shave some hair off a brother’s head. It’s a great way for the community to come together, have fun, enjoy some good food, and help end cancer.

The Collegian does not produce all event descriptions in the Community Calendar.

Contact us at news@tucollegian.org with events.

Crossword

21 October 2019

The Collegian: 5

Collegian Crossword!

Crossword Puzzle

Read this week’s newspaper to solve the crossword puzzle down below!

1

2 4

5

3

6

7

8 9

10

11 12

13

14

15

16 17 18

19

20 21

22

Across

Down

6 “Where has the money gone?”

9 Pairs well with sports 12 Progressive Coalition 13 Mondays @ 5 14 “Abandon the Kurds” 15 Sandwich’s last word 16 Bath Salts Boi 18 Faculty Senate + Admin = 19 Went five ways 21 Only hurts a little 24 $300 hairstyle 25 Juice of the John 26 Britain legs it

1 Not in my library 2 Maeson rocks out 3 Campus caper 4 Ranked third for weed use 5 Plague of the playoffs 7 Clancy’s humblebrag 8 Cyclical theater 10 Biden’s bae 11 Good riddance, Columbus 17 63,992 views a minute 20 Good but unnecessary 22 Build the bonfire 23 Music to Emily’s ears

23

24 25

26

Across 6

Down

'Where has the money gone?'

9 Pairs well with sports 12 Progressive Coalition 13 Mondays @ 5 14 'Abandon the Kurds'

1 2 3

Not in my library Maeson rocks out Campus caper

4 5

Ranked third for weed use Plague of the playoffs

15 16 18 19 21

7 8 10 11 17

Clancy's humblebrag Cyclical theater Biden's bae Good riddance, Columbus 63,992 views a minute

Sandwich's last word Bath Salts Boi Faculty Senate + Admin = Went five ways Only hurts a little

24 $300 hairstyle 25 Juice of the John 26 Britain legs it

ecrosswords.com/crossword/_/720555/crossword.jsp

20 Good but unnecessary 22 Build the bonfire 23 Music to Emily's ears

1/1

Sports

The Collegian: 6

Politics belong in sports Student writer Zach Short asserts that politics have always been, and always should be, part of sports.

Our athletes are some of our greatest heroes. I can still remember watching every game of the World Series both years that the Royals made it, in tatters after their 2014 loss and ecstatic with their 2015 win.

In eighth grade I got my hair cut to look like Eric Hosmer’s unique do that came out from under his hat and helmet during the most exciting moments — it did not look like I had hoped it would.

Sports, in addition to meaning so much to us individually, has a unique ability to bring people together.

It’s one of the only topics that we can argue with one another about incessantly and still enjoy together despite all our differences. However, there has recently been an apparent increase in the political involvement of professional athletes.

The change hasn’t been without scrutiny, as there are certainly plenty of people who think the world of sports would be better if athletes focused solely on their craft and not on the world around them. One of the most shocking assertions is that sports weren’t always like this, and that they used to be an escape from politics.

Unfortunately for those who have bought into it, this belief is utterly preposterous and founded on nothing more than some perverted and ignorant view of the world.

Politics have been a part of sports for as long as sports have been played, but now the NBA’s hassle with China has brought the issue up yet again and we’ve been left to figure out if the NBA should choose their money or their morals.

Regardless, sports and politics have been intertwined since the days of Spartacus’s revolt, but it was in the 20th century and the birth of modern sports that some of the most politicized performances were seen.

Jesse Owens, a black Olympian, went to Berlin in 1936 and won four gold medals despite the Aryan pseudoscience being pushed — a spectacular feat.

He wasn’t invited to shake hands at the White House, and he worked menial jobs for petty cash for years afterward. Jackie Robinson brought color to the sport of base-

ball just over 10 years after Owens ran in Berlin, igniting the long and painful, but eventually successful, desegregation of professional sports.

Muhammad Ali refused to fight in a war in which he didn’t believe and lost years of his boxing prime to the consequential suspension in doing so. In 1980, the U.S. team went stick-to-stick with the U.S.S.R. team in a hockey match.

The American team went on to beat Russia at a game on ice, one that Russia should have had a clear advantage in playing. Politics were always present in sports, especially during the tumultuous 20th century, so why are people seeking a separation of sport and state?

Perhaps the problem is that there was a brief moratorium on political activism in sports. As someone who grew up entirely in the 21st century, I can say that athletes expressing opinions has been something I have only noticed with my own eyes in recent years.

Maybe I was just a little ignorant, but I’ve watched sports my entire life and I can’t personally remember anything politically controversial coming in sports until I was in eighth grade, when Colin Kaepernick kneeled for the first time. Before that, every instance of politics and sports intermingling had been treated as ancient history.

When Kaepernick didn’t stand for the anthem, though, there was an absolute uproar. I don’t know what everyone else experienced, but I grew up in a rural area. If you supported the protest there, you were in the severe minority, and you certainly didn’t share that belief.

It was the first time in a long time that an athlete had taken a controversial stance and was the catalyst for a new age of involvement in sports.

In the years following, LeBron James and Kevin Durant made headlines with their criticisms of the president, hardly any championship team seems to visit the White House, and the women’s soccer team held nothing back in their verbal war with the president.

21 October 2019

Through it all, there has been a ceaseless cry for some idealistic return to normalcy and for athletes to simply play their respective sports and shut their mouths.

But is there anyone better to bring up the issues that matter most? Athletes come from all different socioeconomic backgrounds and from all over the world to participate in a medium that gets through to, guess whom, all different socioeconomic backgrounds all over the world.

They have an incredible platform that rivals that of anyone else in any form of entertainment.

If Patrick Mahomes or James Harden went on television tomorrow and voiced concern for the Kurds, would there not be a massive increase in how many people were on Google searching for information on what is happening there?

Maybe instead of expecting our athletes to be silent, we should expect them to say something when it becomes necessary and should applaud them for promoting risky topics in front of an incredibly diverse worldwide audience.

MLB balls bad for biz?

Student writer Zach Short covers the alleged lack of bounce in the baseballs being used for the playoffs.

If you think that the baseball postseason, in a sport already notorious for being slow, has been extra boring this year, you are not the only one.

Players and coaches all across the league have been expressing concerns that balls aren’t going quite as far as they were just weeks before.

In fact, the St. Louis Cardinals just released a study from their front office confirming that baseballs are traveling less distance than they did in the regular season.

The league has tried to downplay the concerns, saying that the postseason balls are from the same batch as the regular season balls, and it is true that the weather everywhere turned a bit colder right as the playoffs started, so it is very well possible that nothing is happening.

Yet simultaneously, we need to understand that the players and coaches do this for a living, they are aware of all of these factors and they still have been vocal nonetheless. It is to be pondered, however, whether or not the league is addressing the problem appropriately.

For the most part, they have just brushed the issue off to the side and paid little mind to it. This may actually be gross negligence on behalf of the league, considering the only real action in baseball is to be attributed to the sluggers of the sport.

Avoiding the problem also stands in stark contrast to the changes other leagues have been instituting to make sports more fun, such as the 2.5 step rule in the NBA that’s present in no subsequent league and

the recently adopted leniency of excessive celebration rules in the NFL. Whereas faster-paced sports are trying to create even more exciting their games, the MLB does not seem concerned at all at being closer to the action present in golf.

Of course, there is the question of what is to be done. If the league is being truthful about using the same balls, then it really is only fair that those be the balls used. Conversely, it might look better if the league reserved a special batch early in the year every season that would be used only for postseason, or even to save a slightly springier ball for the cooler games in October.

The former might seem a bit excessive or unnecessary, but could give the league some credibility in making sure the balls are ready to be used.

Perhaps they could even commission their source to make a special batch later in the year specifically for the postseason so that they are certifiably fresh for the most important games of the season.

The latter suggestion, conversely, may seem outright unfair but, if done correctly, could also be potentially considered more fair. If the ball is flying well all year, is it not right to compensate for expected weather conditions to keep the game moving much the same as it was?

These are just a few potential solutions, and I’m sure there are a hundred more valid suggestions; I just know that if it was my league having a less than exciting postseason, I would be doing all that I could to turn the bore-fest into a spectacle.

Bulgarian soccer fans chant slurs at England match Commentary Editor Chris Lierly details last Monday’s incident in which fans chanted racial slurs loud enough to force referees to stop the game.

On Monday Oct. 14, Bulgaria and England played in a qualifying match for the Euro 2020 tournament, but the 6-0 England win will not be remembered for what happened on the field.

Instead, anything written about the game will reference what the Bulgarian fans did off the field and the repercussions caused by those actions.

England Manager Gareth Southgate had expressed concerns the previous week that Bulgarian fans might direct racist chants at his players, citing Bulgaria’s 2011 fine by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) for doing exactly that.

The president of Bulgaria’s soccer union, Borislav Mihaylov, called these concerns “offensive” and disregarded Southagate’s worries, but once the monkey chants and Nazi salutes began on Monday amongst some of the Bulgarian fans, it became apparent that the English manager had placed his fears well.

Since then, Bulgarian police have arrested six in connection with the event, and, after being pressured by Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, Mihaylov has resigned as the head of Bulgarian soccer.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson called the actions “vile” and pressed UEFA to act swiftly in its response.

Referees had to pause the game twice because of the racist chants, but that didn’t stop Ross Barkley and Raheem Sterling from each scoring two goals as Marcus Rashford and Harry Kane each netted one.

Kane, England’s captain, said after the game that he was proud of the team’s unity despite “disgraceful circumstances.”

Sterling and Rashford, the two most prolific black players on the squad, were the main targets of the abuse.

During the match, Bulgarian captain Ivelin Popov seemed to be pleading with the home fans to stop what they were doing, but not all members of the Bulgarian squad were

so disapproving of their supporters. Plamen Iliev, the Bulgarian goalkeeper, claimed that the home fans “behaved well” and that the British players “overreacted a bit.”’

Despite a divided take from the Bulgarian squad and a steadfast support of English players behind Rashford and Sterling, these despicable actions are part of a worrying trend in European politics and soccer.

In the last several years, Euopean parliaments have seen numerous conservative and far-right-wing governments take control through the use of racist and xenophobic rhetoric.

Bulgaria, governed currently by a rightwing coalition that features multiple populist parties, is one of these countries.

Though Eastern European soccer fans have received their due share of blame and condemnation, racism in soccer is not an epidemic confined to countries in the former Warsaw Pact. In the current decade alone the English Football Association has had to fine

and ban fans of multiple prominent teams including Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur.

Additionally, the Italian club Calgilari has now had repeated incidents where their fans have racially abused players on opposing teams.

None of this is to lessen what the Bulgarian fans did or to try and imply that British soccer has racism problems on the level of Italy because they don’t.

However, Europe as a continent with a racism problem, and unlike America (another country grappling with its racism), the Europeans do not have the choice to keep politics out of their sports.

Soccer has always been a means for Europeans to express their beliefs, but at a time when populist politics aer surging, that necessarily means more ultranationalism.

The racism the entire world saw on display this week will not go away from a slap on the wrist by UEFA, it will have to instead be confronted at the ballot box.

Oct. 21 - Oct. 27 Monday

Tuesday 22

21

W Tennis ITA Central Regionals M Tennis @ Fayetteville Future 25k

Wednesday

M Tennis @ Fayetteville Future 25k

M Tennis @ Fayetteville Future 25k

Friday

24

23

M Soccer vs. ORU 7 p.m.

W Tennis ITA Central Regionals

Thursday

Saturday 25

W Soccer vs. SMU 7 p.m.

Volleyball @ Temple 6 p.m.

M Tennis ITA Central Regionals

M Tennis ITA Central Regionals

M Tennis @ Fayetteville Future 25k

M Tennis @ Fayetteville Future 25k

26

Football vs. Memphis 6 p.m.

M Soccer @ Memphis 7 p.m.

M Tennis ITA Central Regionals M Tennis @ Fayetteville Future 25k

Sunday 27 W Soccer vs. Houston 1 p.m.

Volleyball @ Temple 6 p.m.

W Golf Las Vegas Collegiate M Tennis ITA Central Regionals M Tennis @ Fayetteville Future 25k

Commentary

21 October 2019

The Collegian: 7

Trump withdrawal from Syria possbily GOP tipping point

The president and the GOP have always had a strained relationship, but 2020 is fast approaching.

Adam Walsh Student Writer United States President Donald Trump has, through his authority as commander in chief, demanded the withdrawal of American forces from Syrian territory, which means abandoning our Kurdish allies in the area — a categorically bad decision. The U.S. has had its fingers in Northern Syria for a long time, and to abandon a consistent group of allies there is a smack in the face to the sacrifices made by American and Kurdish soldiers. The decision is completely, irreparably awful — so awful, in fact, that it has fractured the Republican Party’s unity between the executive and legislative branches. This split could indicate a major break in the stability of the Republican Party, which, considering the 2020 election cycle has already begun, might spell a fortuitous future for his opponents.

Now, let’s take a step into my time machine and go back to the year I believe the world ended and this wack timeline was put into place: 2016.

Some of you cringed hard, but looking at the history between Trump and the GOP illustrates how bad a position the party is in. If you remember, multiple important GOP figures did not want Trump to win the nomination, but a grassroots movement among the party-base sealed his victory. Even with the overwhelming majority Trump had among the party’s members, Republican leaders were hesitant to award him the nomination.

The GOP did not want Trump to win. He was seen as too volatile, engaging with too many fringe, unsavory groups with sometimes vile ideologies. That behaviour isolated the Republican party even further from the Democratic party, and Trump sitting in office for four years was a potentially cataclysmic event, but party loyalty temporarily won out, and the GOP closed ranks, secretly hoping that he would lose.

Then he won.

He somehow won. On the surface, it looked like a Republican Party Christmas

miracle. With this victory, they would have control over both houses of Congress and the Executive Branch, allowing them to pass whatever they wanted … in the ideal situation. But Trump did not want to soften his views, remaining dedicated to his inflammatory rhetoric, which spelled doom to the next 4 years of politics.

With this context, it is easier to see how fundamentally unstable the Republican Party was prior to any major scandal emerging, which primes the detonator on the inevitable GOP implosion when the right trigger event comes up. An event that is somehow illogical and disrespectful to the party’s base patriotic ideals, like, perhaps, hanging allies out to dry in hostile territory. With Trump’s decision, the GOP has found itself between a rock and a hard place. Do they stick with president and party, attempting to defend an indefensible position? Or do they split with the president, showing their internal disunity to the American public? It’s a hard line to straddle in the political sphere, but while previous situations have sometimes allowed a glimpse into this internal chaos, it was never to this degree.

When your Senate Majority Leader thinks you have made a poor decision, and is outspoken about it, you know you messed up.

With Mitch McConnell, that majority leader, flagrantly defying the position stated by his party head, the GOP is forced to choose between inevitably dying on Trump’s hill or jumping off his wagon. It seems to be an easy decision. Abandoning trustworthy allies makes no logical sense, and because of that, Trump has provided an opportunity for the GOP and the Democratic Party to agree.

When Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader in the Senate, and Mitch McConnell agree on something, you should see if hell’s frozen over, but they have both aggressively pushed back on the president’s views, implying that some unknown deal must exist between him and the Assad regime.

Perhaps this is the final tiny bit of patience the Republican leadership has for Trump fizzling out. How does one defend abandoning allies that have fought alongside American troops in foreign land, during a conflict that we were responsible for? Is this the moment where the GOP embraces the fault that splits their party off from bipartisan action?

It would make sense, cast away the extreme views held by the far right, let go of Trump, and rebuild the Republican party as a more moderate group. It’s rather unfortunate, and a bit depressing, that the greatest moment of political unity in the past 15 years comes from a president deciding to consign a minority group to brutal deaths at the hands of a dictatorial regime.

Lindsey Graham has decried the president’s foreign policy.

Scrutiny comes as NATO member Turkey begins its invasion of Syria.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has become the face of millenial politics.

courtesy Wikimedia Commons

Ocasio-Cortez’s hairstyle only an issue for her, not the country

Republicans have argued that her trip to the salon doesn’t run concurrently to her politics.

Dominic Cingoranelli Student Writer Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past year, you probably know who Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is. The representative for New York’s 14th district, OcasioCortez took office in early 2019, and her tenure has seen quite a few controversies.

From her proposal to pay for medicare for all to the Green New Deal to shady cam-

tives are paid a salary of $174,000 annually; in addition to this they receive an annual cost-of-living wage increase of 1 percent, unless they vote to decline this, as has been done since 2009.

She has been attacked for this under the pretext of it being a waste of money and a hypocritical use of money, considering her adamant support of combating income inequality. Specifically, Richard Manning, the president of conservative non-profit organization Americans for Limited Government, issued a statement saying that, “There is nothing wrong with spending money to make yourself look better, especially as a personality who depends upon visual mediums for her make power ... but it is a bad look to spend hundreds of dollars to get your hair done to make a video decrying income inequality.”

Conversely, Ocasio-Cortez responded to criticisms by pointing out that Mike Pence spent $600,000 ─ Not of his own salary, but taxpayer money ─ to take limos to various Trump golf courses.

“... it’s her money, and if she wants to spend it frivolously, then that’s her prerogative ...” paign financing (Although that can apply to pretty much any politician within the past nine years) and, most recently, Ocasio-Cortez is under fire for getting a $300 haircut.

This is seen by some as antithetical to the socialist principles she advocates. This is completely unprecedented. A politician being hypocritical? Who could have seen this coming?

In all seriousness, I believe that OcasioCortez is free to spend her salary frivolously, even if it comes across as hypocritical.

With that in mind, let’s evaluate the facts of the situation.

In early October, it was reported that she had spent $80 on a haircut and $180 on low lights, and ─ assuming she tipped 20 percent ─ that would bring her total to $312. Ocasio-Cortez identifies herself as a democratic socialist, and the issues which she focuses on the most are medicare for all, climate change and ─ most important in this context ─ income inequality.

It is this emphasis on income inequality that political opponents have used against Representative Ocasio-Cortez. Representa-

Ocasio-Cortez has been given a polarizing and partisan treatment by virtually every major news source. Depending on whether you follow primarily left-leaning or rightleaning news sources more, she’s either a fiery, stunning and brave young politician or an economically illiterate and incompetent ignoramus, respectively. What’s worse is there’s no room in between these two extremes. You’re either “with her,” in which case you don’t know anything about the economy and just want free stuff, or you’re “against her,” in which case you hate poor people, women and minorities. In about one hour of research, do you know how many objective, dispassionate, unbiased analyses of the situation I found? Zero. Do you know how many half-truths and loaded questions I found? Probably an average of 2.5 or so per article, but I digress.

So was AOC wrong for spending her money that way? I’m gonna say no, it’s her money, and if she wants to spend it frivolously, then that’s her prerogative, even if it seemingly conflicts with the values she identifies herself with.

courtesy U.S. Department of Defense

courtesy Wikimedia Commons

Commentary

The Collegian: 8

21 October 2019

Edited campaign video a short-lived microcontroversy

The brutal mashup was shown at a Trump resort, but we shouldn’t expect any less.

Zach Short Student Writer If you haven’t heard about it yet, another micro-controversy has come out of the Trump presidency (I call it a micro-controversy because many will have forgotten about it by the time this is even printed).

At an event sponsoring Donald Trump in Miami, an edited video of Trump violently destroying essentially everyone he has ever labeled as an opponent was shown. The video was an edit from “Kingsman: The Secret Service,” where Colin Firth’s character viciously murders everyone in a church and includes Trump’s face crudely pasted over Colin Firth’s. Replacing the faces of the victims are logos from popular news sources

to murder political opponents (remember the pipe bomb incident?).

Perhaps the problem with the state of politics now is the way that we are able to let everything be thrown under the rug if we like the effects. Example: the hundreds of time the president has been caught blatantly lying to the public, or when he refused to be anything but an annoying and interrupting ass during every debate, or even when he refused to condemn self-proclaimed Nazis marching in Charlottesville. My personal favorite moment was when the crown prince of Saudi Arabia cut an American citizen to pieces for being a good journalist and not being afraid to criticize a government, and we were all complicit because our gas prices were lower for about six weeks. We brushed these things aside because people felt that his policy was worth it. Spoiler alert — no president calling the press the enemy of the people is worth any policy; the press is the most powerful tool the people hold over their government.

But what is there in his policy that makes people think him so easy to forgive? Many people point out the economy, but I find that there isn’t much there. We’re continuing mostly on a trend started long before he took office, and the only real developments I’ve seen are that he seems eager for an allout trade war with China (which will hurt all of us) and that we’ve had a handful of scary declines in the stock market.

the absolute most important consideration over civil liberties and spewed rhetoric, the president still has nothing to defend him.

Say what you want about Barack Obama, he didn’t pull anything like this president.

And to the Democrats who feel superior with that statement, neither Ronald Reagan nor either of the Bushs were at all like this. Iraq might’ve been a messy deal, but there’s a part of me that thinks Dubya actually thought he was doing what was right (I blame Cheney, the aptly named Dick). No president in any recent history has been as much of a demagogue as the gremlin we have in office now.

I wish I could say we deserve a better president, but we don’t. We are a country that allows Nazis to still exist and prefers mass shootings to a decent background check system; we got exactly the jaggaloon that we deserve. Therefore, I don’t ask you to look for someone whom you think you deserve. I ask you to get involved with this next election and pick the best candidate that was willing to run. If nothing else, just try to elect someone who recognizes their own faults and wants to be a good person.

They’re harder to find these days.

“... try to elect someone who recognizes their own faults and wants to be a good person.” and social movements along with actual people whom Trump has criticized.

If you haven’t seen the edited video, you probably need to do so, not because it’s fun to watch, but because violent memes of the president slaughtering political opponents is the place we are in American politics. Crazy videos like these are being validated by people in positions of power, not so subtly justifying zealots who are honestly willing

Low unemployment rate? Great, but very few are making more money — millions of people are still very poor. He also has an extremely strict view on immigration, which is apparently subsequently a war on crime, but I haven’t noticed any less crime, rape or drugs, only that the country might be a tad bit whiter. If climate change or gun control is to be the concern, there is no policy to be protected. Ultimately, even if policy were The video has since been condemned by multiple parties featured in it.

courtesy Twitter/@ThePlaylist

Handke’s relationship to Milošević not a disqualifier

The writer’s proximity to the Serbian war criminal has put his entire award into question.

Adam Walsh Student Writer A question for you: should high tier international awards have political implications?

Should a winner have their entire background scrutinized before winning? Should an individual’s art be separate from their personal beliefs?

These are difficult questions with no grounded, singular rule for all cases. However, this last round of Nobel Prize winners has elicited a large reaction that indicates there is a line that was crossed.

Peter Handke, an Austrian man born in 1942, received one of this year’s prizes in literature due to his “influential work that

with linguistic ingenuity has explored the periphery and the specificity of human experience” — a statement taken from the official Nobel Prize’s website. Sounds pretty good, right? Seems that he has a way with words, his biographical bibliography is extensive and he is grateful and humble in his post-award interview. Although that’s all on the up and up, they neglect to mention that time he gave the eulogy for a man indicted for 66 charges relating to war crimes and violating the Geneva Convention. Must have slipped through the cracks.

The dead man in question, Slobodan Milošević, was problematic, to say the least.

A born Serb, he quickly rose through the political ranks in Yugoslavia, a nation-state constantly on the brink of a race-based civil war. Eventually, the state would break up through a series of secessions from each race’s subgovernment. It’s a whole mess that takes years to explain, but Milošević, the acting president at the time, was a key figure at the center of this ball of confusion.

Some paint Milošević as a political opportunist, riding waves of nationalism, antiimperialism and xenophobia as a means to further his political agenda, and others see him as a twisted war criminal butchering others with impunity. However, the U.N. stated their investigation did not provide enough evidence that he was directly responsible or complicit with the war crimes, but they also claimed he did not do enough

Handke’s (left) award will likely remain tied to Milošević (right).

to prevent them, isolating Milošević in history as someone with no true, definitive verdict from the U.N.’s court. Essentially, he got away with whatever he did and did not do. Make no mistake, he was an awful man. He allowed nationalist groups to move freely without interference from his government, engaged in typical absolutist tactics like censorship and historical revisionism and some of his policies are straight out of the fascist playbook. He openly wished for more Serbians-only living spaces, directly mirroring Adolf Hitler’s Lebensraum doctrine. Others see him as a Serbian hero, standing up for their unity as a culture and attempting to ensure the continuation of their people.

So Milošević is a divisive figure and Peter Handke spoke at his funeral; Handke was friends with a man indicted for war crimes.

Does that mean he cannot earn a widely recognized prize for his work? Should his art be separate from his personal connections?

Is it possible to separate the two?

To be honest, I’m not sure.

Do I think it was a wise decision for the Nobel Prize Committee to award him the prize in lit? No. However, does that allow one the ability to strip his honor? To answer that, I have to say the worst part about this situation is how deeply private Handke is.

From the little I can dig up, he had an awful childhood, with his mom committing suicide and his stepfather descending into

violent alcoholism, and my human empathy wants to give him a free pass on this.

Do I think his political views and friendship with Milošević are bad? Yeah, I personally would not want to associate with, let me say again, a U.N.-indicted war criminal. But is it enough to disqualify him and his hard work?

As the writer of this article, I could sell out and take a middle ground position or say no and end this thing, but this is something I struggle with as an individual. I am so painfully conscious of the possibility that some of the jokes that I make or things said out of context could cause me great grief in the future; that someone from high school will do something awful and I’m seen as complicit due to a previous relationship. If I condemn him for his close association to a heinous individual, then I open myself up to the same criticism. My mom and dad were not great people for a good portion of their lives; my sister has done things that I don’t want to reflect on me, so can I ethically say that someone should strip his democratically given award? I don’t think so.

This is another one of those moments where one has to examine their personal bias on a topic, and this one leaves me feeling conflicted. I condemn the actions, disagree with Handke’s relationship with Milošević, but the award has been given, and I cannot say that it should be retracted, but I am curious about what you, humble reader, think.

I’m open to talk about it.

courtesy Wikimedia Commons

21 October 2019

Commentary

The Collegian: 9

Fourth debate, more of the same contentious talk

The debate saw multiple attempts to knock Elizabeth Warren from her almost-front-runner status.

Dominic Cingoranelli Student Writer The Fourth Democratic Debate, on Tuesday, Oct. 15, was three hours long, and, if you’ve seen the first three, you’ve honestly seen this one. Even though this was the first time they bothered to talk about foreign policy, they still spent as much time as they possibly could on beating all of the dead horses that they killed three debates ago.

But not all pandering politicians are equal, so let’s look at the winners and losers from this debate.

First, since the goal of these debates is to rile up as many people as possible with

being a corrupt and sycophantic public servant. However, she said that she supported ending the “endless wars” in the Middle East by reducing U.S. involvement, which implied that she agreed with Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria, and we can’t allow any bipartisanship, now can we?

Kamala Harris is still in the race, despite the fact that her self-serving track record as California’s attorney general was publicly exposed in the second debate. She did make a pretty good point about how the debate format unfairly pigeonholes candidates into giving brief and insubstantial takes on issues by only allowing them a minute and 15 seconds to talk.

Tom Steyer claimed that 90 percent of Americans have not had a raise in the past 40 years, and this is a half-truth. The share of income taken by the bottom 90 percent has, in fact, decreased, but the average wages of the bottom 90 percent have increased beyond inflation in the past 40 years. Also, his argument loses all credence when one considers that he has no political experience and was only able to force himself into the running, Ross Perot style, by being a billionaire.

Cory Booker spent much of what precious little time he had to speak defending Biden for some reason. His performance was completely inoffensive and “safe.”

Senator Warren spoke the most on Tuesday night.

courtesy Wikimedia Commons

Multiple moderate candidates criticized Warren’s proposed policies.

courtesy Wikimedia Commons

“Every candidate on stage either supports medicare for all ... or an expansion of the Affordable Care Act ...” promises you can’t or won’t make good on, let’s look at speaking time. The figures put out by CNN show that Elizabeth Warren was the most successful in this regard by a mile, with about 23 minutes of speaking time. The next closest was Joe Biden with a little over 16 minutes, and the absolute lowest was newcomer Tom Steyer, who has forced his way into the debates by virtue of being a billionaire; he spoke for about seven minutes.

Every candidate on stage either supports medicare for all (M4A) or an expansion of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).In this regard, Pete Buttigeg has the strongest point of contention in regards to M4A: “I don’t understand why you believe the only way to deliver affordable coverage to everybody is to obliterate private plans, kicking 150 million Americans off of their insurance in four short years.” The topic of healthcare has been covered very extensively in previous debates, so I’ll leave it at that.

In the third debate, Beto O’Rourke made headlines for saying, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” He did not make any similarly controversial statements, but he did reaffirm his stance on this issue.

Elizabeth Warren tried to dodge the question of whether or not her M4A plan would raise taxes on the middle class. Seeing as she is on course to definitively usurp the role of frontrunner, she was given the most time to speak and was also the subject of the most criticism.

Andrew Yang has finally found a stable foothold within the DNC establishment after his cult following allowed him to persevere this far. He displayed his now campaign slogan, “Make America Think Harder” (MATH), and was able to reasonably defend his Universal Basic Income proposal under the lens of preparation for future automation. He was given about 10 minutes to speak, which is still decidedly meager compared to establishment favorites Warren and Biden, but a substantial im-

Julián Castro was also there.

The moderators obviously are not too keen on creating an environment where each candidate is given a platform to share their ideas, instead creating a sensationalist echo chamber where the people who were already polling the best are rewarded for being career politicians by being given three times as much airtime as people who are new to the scene. This rewards people who have PACs and super PACs and are therefore able to drill their names into the heads of voters, essentially rewarding sellouts for being sellouts. They concluded with a question about Ellen DeGeneres, just in case anyone was doubting my sensationalism contention there.

This article is already way too long, but I’d like to talk about candidates who did not make the stage this time around and who have not withdrawn their candidacy. I very seriously doubt any of them have a chance, and I feel like Charlie Brown running to kick that football when I support one of these people, but I’ll do it nonetheless.

Michael Bennet is a mild-mannered educator turned senator. Bipartisan compromise is a core tenet of his platform, and he seeks to reform education including free public preschool. “Politicians talk about free college because preschoolers can’t vote,” he says. He believes that the “my way or the highway” attitude adopted by many highprofile candidates is dangerous and counterproductive. He has failed to gain traction because he was late to enter the race and because of his general lack of charisma.

Steve Bullock, the governor of Montana, supports a $15 minimum wage, a reversal of Citizens United v. FEC and universal background checks with a voluntary buyback program for assault weapons.

John Delaney, a Representative from Maryland, believes in a mixed economy with a focus on encouraging competition.

He identifies himself as a “pragmatic progressive” and has a strong record of working across the aisle.

editor-in-chief

Ethan Veenker managing editor

“... some candidates with incredible ideas are never given a chance to share their platform ...” provement when one considers that he was only allowed to speak for about four minutes in the first debate.

Unlike Warren, Bernie Sanders was willing to admit that his medicare-for-all plan would raise taxes on the middle class, but justified this by saying that the overall expense and net cost of health care would go down, even if the public burden increased.

Additionally, he was able to brush off his recent heart attack as a fluke.

Amy Klobuchar has yet to qualify for the November debate and it is likely because of this that she focused much of her speaking time on attacking the new front-runner, Elizabeth Warren, criticizing the senator’s lack of rigorously-defined plans.

Joe Biden was only a front runner to begin with because everybody already knew his name, and now he is on course to be overtaken by Warren. After the Ukraine scandal with his son Hunter Biden, he defended himself by pretending there’s nothing wrong with the situation.

Tulsi Gabbard was the most searched candidate after the second debate, where she famously called out Kamala Harris for

@TUCollegian

tucollegian@tucollegian.org

Marianne Williamson is kind of crazy.

She’s a spiritualist and she said in the first debate that she thinks Donald Trump has a “dark psychic energy” or something to that effect; I was unable to find the exact quote but she definitely used the word “psychic.”

Joe Sestak, a more recent addition to the pack of 2020 candidates, is a former Navy vice-admiral who supports neither M4A nor Obamacare, instead proposing a complete replacement for Obamacare. He supports student debt relief programs and a ban on assault weapons.

Tim Ryan, a Representative from Ohio, wants to revitalize U.S. manufacturing and do so in an environmentally sustainable way. He favors M4A and supports stricter regulations on firearms without banning any type of firearm completely.

It is regrettable that some candidates with incredible ideas are never given a chance to share their platform simply because they fail to energize people with witty half-true one-liners and catchy slogans. Regardless of this, however, 2020 will be an interesting election year no matter who the DNC ultimately nominates.

Emily Every news editor

Madison Connell sports editor

Brennen Gray variety editor

Piper Prolago commentary editor

Chris Lierly satire editor

Sara Serrano photo & graphics editor

Emma Palmer

business & advertising manager

Brian Kwiecinski

social media & web manager

Anna Johns

distribution managers

Alaina Nauman Mary Bergwell copy editor

Hana Saad

The Collegian is the student newspaper of the University of Tulsa. It is distributed Mondays during the fall and spring semesters, except during holidays and final exam weeks. The University of Tulsa does not discriminate on the basis of personal status or group characteristics including but not limited to the classes protected under federal and state law. Inquiries regarding implementation of this policy may be addressed to the Office of Human Resources, 800 South Tucker Drive, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-9700, (918)631-2616. Requests for accomodation of disabilities may be addressed to the university’s 504 Coordinator, Dr. Tawny Rigsby, (918)631-3814. To ensure availability of an interpeter, five to seven days notice is needed; 48 hours is recommended for all other accomodations.

Advertising Policy: Advertising appearing in this publication does not imply approval or endorsement by the University of Tulsa or the Collegian for the products or services advertised. For advertising information, email the Collegian at advertising@tucollegian.org. The deadline for advertising is noon on the Friday proir to publication.

Letter Policy: Letters to the editor must be less than 500 words and can be sent to tucollegian@tucollegian.org. Under no circumstances will anonymous letters be published. The name of the person submitting the letter must be published with the letter. We reserve the right to edit or reject all letters. The deadline for letters is 5 p.m. on the Friday prior to publication.

Editing Policy: The Collegian reserves the right to edit all copy submitted by all writers. This editing may take place in many forms, including grammar corrections, changes in paragraph structure or even the addition or removal of sections of content.

Editorial Policy: Columnists are solely responsible for the content of their columns. Opinions expressed in columns may not represent the opions of the Collegian staff, the administrative policies of the University of Tulsa, the views of the student body or our advertisers.

Commentary

The Collegian: 10

21 October 2019

Don’t dignify president with name The office used to carry more weight, but recent actions should stain it.

Zach Short Student Writer Whether you are or are not a fan of the man, it is no secret that the president has been met with an incredible amount of controversy. So much, however, that many times the American public finds itself deal-

ing with unprecedented scenarios that are forgotten within a week, if not just a few days. The most obvious reason that these moments are discarded from the nation’s conscience so quickly is because many of his transgressions are simply not out of character. Statements that show implicit racism, occasionally even explicit, are not out of the ordinary. Personal attacks and namecalling are commonplace, no matter how ruthless. Because I simultaneously believe that almost nothing he does is acceptable and know that he acts in direct accordance with who he is, I have reached the conclusion that it might be better to just never say his name.

I do not make this suggestion lightly. It is something that I have already experimented with in my own conversation and writing, and it is something in which I believe greatly. My decision is not made out of fear either. This isn’t based on a concept similar to that of Voldemort and the HeWho-Must-Not-Be-Named moniker. Rath-

er, I have decided to stop saying his name because I think it detracts from how much he is perverting the office of the president. I simply find it more damning to say that the president left the Kurds, our allies, to die. If I were to violate that sentiment with his actual name, I believe that it would take away from the gravity of the situation. Instead of attributing the actions to the man, I attribute them to the office.

As far as we may be from the idea now, the office of the president was once upon a time the most revered position throughout the country. We didn’t expect the president to be a good person, we expected him, unfortunately not her (yet), to be better than a good person. Our presidents were expected to be perfect. Even when they were criticized, we expected them to find a way to handle it with grace. When they made an error, we wished they would either own up to what happened or sell it as the only opportunity, if not even silently hoping they would just make us believe it wasn’t an error at all.

We looked up to the president; they were the shining symbol of the greatest nation in all of history and the leader of the free world.

Now, everything has changed. The president caters only to his fan base, not even pretending to be a leader of all Americans.

There is no longer the idea that we are all united under one flag: the president has, on multiple occasions, accused political opponents of being outright treasonous. There is only the in-crowd and the out-crowd, and the president is only the president to his incrowd. That’s why I’ve elected to stop saying, writing, and even thinking of him by his name. I don’t want to take his actions in reference to who he is, I want to see what he does through the lens of all the presidents before him and what the office once was. Is it really that easy to say phrases like “the President of the United States of America once gloated about grabbing women by the p**sy”? God, I hope not.

Libraries right in resisting Macmillan’s e-book changes

The company claims libraries have undercut their e-book profit, but this misses the point of public libraries.

Lizzy Young Student Writer If you have ever rented an e-book from a library, then you should be concerned about new restrictions being placed on libraries access to digital titles. On Nov. 1, Macmillan Publishers, one of the largest publishers in the U.S., has announced that it will impose

new limits on libraries purchasing e-books.

For new releases, they will only allow libraries to purchase one copy for the first eight weeks. This means that popular titles that like Stephen King or James Patterson novels will have long waits for readers wanting to access those titles.

In addition, after the first eight weeks, if libraries would like to purchase additional digital copies, then they will have to pay double the cost of the first copy. The extra copies will then expire after two years. So, two years later, libraries will have to decide if it is in their budget to keep the copies.

Macmillan Publishers cites their reasons for adding these restrictions on digital titles for libraries as competition. They say that libraries are undercutting their profits, because people would rather read them for free than purchase them. What this ultimately means for readers is less access to library content.

With these restrictions, if a reader waiting for a novel wants to read it as soon as it comes out to avoid spoilers, they must

purchase it instead of gaining free access through their library.

However, what Macmillan is ignoring with these new stipulations is the new readers that libraries gain for them. As an avid reader, I frequent the library, their physical locations as well as their digital titles. For this reason, I have been exposed to many more authors because I had access to free books than I would have had if I had to pay for those books.

Taking away that access forces readers to make a choice, either wait for the book, which they may not care about 24 weeks later when they get the book, or buy the book.

This choice puts people with lower income in a bind, who may love to read but do not have the money to buy the books they really want. In addition, it hurts students who are using libraries for research and who might not have the funds to buy the book they need.

As someone who reads a lot, I will purchase books that I really care about without reading them first. However, if there is a

book I think I might like or an author I have heard about, I prefer to read it from the library first since I have limited funds. Then if I like the author I will buy the book and explore more of their titles.

However, if I look at the wait time, and I can’t get access within a reasonable amount of time, then I will just skip it and perhaps might come back to the author later or not.

Macmillan ignoring libraries as a key tool to gain more readers, and then raising the price of e-books for libraries might actually hurt them in the long run more than it helps them.

The American Library Association has denounced Macmillan’s announcement and are looking for ways to fight back against the decision. Tulsa County Library supports their decision.

One way they have done this is asking all patrons of Tulsa libraries to sign a petition at e-booksForAll.org. They want the voices of the people to be heard saying that libraries should be considered collaborators for books and not competitors.

Sanders wins the litmus test against Warren

Though both have used the label of progressive, Warren has yet to call for radical change.

Justin Klopfer Student Writer In the 2020 Democratic primary race, two candidates seem to have made a name for themselves as the most progressive: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Many media outlets seem to treat these candidates as practically identical, both representing the same progressive movement in America.

Before recent developments, Warren and Sanders indeed formed a sort of coalition due to their natural allyship as the furthest left of the candidates. However, as the candidates continue to outline their policy and people have begun to ask more questions, the differences have become more apparent.

Healthcare has become one of the key issues of this primary race, and many different

options have been given for handling this massive issue. Sanders’s policy, outlined in his “Medicare for All” bill, supports a single-payer system of healthcare, meaning no out-of-pocket expenses for any healthcare (a policy almost all other industrialized nations have). Warren, while claiming to support Medicare for All, makes no mention of a single-payer program on her official policies. As recently as 2012 she has disavowed single-payer, citing the Affordable Care Act as a more realistic solution. In the 2020 campaign, Warren has not vocally disavowed single-payer, but refuses to identify it as the focus of her plan. Both candidates may have sympathy towards single-payer, but Sanders has clearly placed himself as the only candidate willing to fight for it.

On the issue of foreign policy, the senators seem to have different goals for the role of the U.S. in the world. Warren prioritizes “American interests first and foremost.”

Sanders sees how this line of thinking has led to disastrous American intervention in places all across the globe. In places like Palestine and Venezuela, he prioritizes the will and wellbeing of the people, not the invested capital that American interests want to protect.

Beyond these important policy differences, there is a glaring difference in the candidates’ attitudes towards how progress ought to be attained in America. Sanders recognizes that organizing, protesting and striking are the only real ways justice has been obtained historically. He says he wants to

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement of Sanders was a major milestone for the Vermont Senator.

be an “Organizer-in-Chief,” indicating his desire to spur on these movements to push for the change he wants. Warren focuses her campaign on “having a plan”, meaning a legal policy, for all problems. The reality is that these plans will never be able to achieve fundamental change in the American system, they will only slightly reform the injustices.

ers’s progressive views on foreign policy and geopolitical relations.

Many may argue that Warren is willing to occupy a stance closer to the middle ground in order to pass legislation through a tough senate. The reality is that this “compromise” approach has already been failing at achieving progressive reforms for decades.

Democrats continue to allow themselves to

“Omar and Tlaib’s endorsements represent an approval of Sanders’s progressive views on foreign policy” There are also incredibly important differences in the candidates’ political histories. Warren was a registered Republican until 1996. Sanders was arrested in 1963 for participating in a civil rights protest. In congress, Warren supported budget proposals that increased the military budget. Sanders opposed all of them. Warren supported Israel vocally in the 2014 Gaza conflict, citing its “right to defend itself.” Sanders spoke against Israel’s use of force and called it “indiscriminate.

Sanders’s progressivism was recently recognized by three of the representatives in “The Squad”: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement represents an approval from America’s struggling middle class and millennial generation. Omar and Tlaib’s endorsements represent an approval of Sand-

slip closer to the center with a vain hope that Republicans will do the same. It is time for a true progressive to pull the democrats and the American people towards demanding these reforms.

The fundamental difference between the candidates was shown quite recently when Sanders was directly asked about the differences between himself and Warren. He cited Warren calling herself a “capitalist to [her] bones,” which Sanders said he is not.

This ideological distinction is what creates the true rift between the senators. Warren favors small reforms while retaining the exploitative nature of American capitalism, whereas Bernie recognizes its fundamental injustice and seeks to change the system at its core.

courtesy Twitter/@BernieSanders

Variety

21 October 2019

The Collegian: 11

Emily Every Managing Editor The Unicorns - “Who Will Cut Our Hair When We’re Gone?”

My mom and I bond over music. I’ve always shared with her the bands and albums I’ve been listening to, regardless of how “out there” they may have been (I’ve been lucky with lax parents when it comes to what media I consumed as a teenager), and she usually responds positively. Anyway, when I first played “Who Will Cut Our Hair When We’re Gone” by The Unicorns for her in what was maybe early high school, she turned to me and asked why I was playing sound effects.

Released originally on Oct. 21, 2003, The Unicorns’s first and final album came out during an indie pop height, but the Montreal-based band found a niche fanbase for their slightly unhinged sound and definitely unhinged live performances. Since then, the album’s grown into itself and solidified its spot in the indie pop canon, especially with its 11th anniversary remastered rerelease in 2014.

It’s a lightning-in-a-bottle album, with the band’s quarreling creatives only being able to work together long enough to create one project, and the tension of the album’s recording is buoyant from clashing creative energy of the two, swinging as they do between sounds and tones. Midway through the album, the track “I Was Born (A Unicorn)” delves into that authorial tension: the band’s two vocalists and creative leads, Nick Thorburn and Alden Penner, sing insults back at one another: “I write the songs / I write the songs! / You say I’m doing it wrong / You are doing it wrong!”

I’ll start with the fact that The Unicorns, in many ways, sound more experimental than they really are. The vocals change both pitch and vocalist frequently, the lyrics are manic and the song structures are non-traditional, yes, but the moment-to-moment sound of the album is entirely accessible. It’s a series of musical hooks that catch and twist, few melodies repeating themselves, but each being essentially indie pop in nature. “Who Will Cut …” is a pop album without a pop verse-chorus-verse structure, and that’s where, I think, it becomes nothing more than a series of sound effects to some listeners.

It’s an album you have to trust to carry itself on its own terms. There are no choruses to hold it up; the album sort of floats — or maybe stomps — through. The listener has to be comfortable enough to let the record turn over without tensing about where or what it explores. And it does touch on heavy subjects, often in fumbled, sort of misshapen ways.

Take the track “Inoculate the Innocuous,” which is seemingly about needing to take drugs for cancer treatment, though the lyrics are few enough to allow for alternative readings. A minute-or-so into the track, lead vocalist Thorburn (who now occasionally releases music under the stage name Nick Diamonds) singsong whispers, “Somewhere in the asshole of my eye / There’s a muscle which relaxes when you cry.” It’s an ugly, anatomicallyhorrific visual, but it’s one of the lyrics that I find myself turning over in my head most often from any song that I know.

The “asshole of my eye” metaphor could be a discussion of grief lensed through selfloathing, it could be a play on pupils expanding, it could be dressed-up nonsense hinting at depth. It’s not really the intention that matters to me (though Genius assures me it’s a pun on the iris sphincter muscle); to risk sounding like That Guy, it’s the fact that, despite many promising interpretations, I can’t know for certain what “the asshole” of an eye may mean.

It’s sung with such sincerity too, like I should know what this whole enterprise hints at, like it’s so natural, all while I’m being led through a lyrical funhouse — it doesn’t matter what I think it may mean, just that I know it means something in the rest of the album’s crunched-up, obtuse narrative.

“Inoculate the Innocuous” is the most down the album evers sounds, and its lyrical and sonic sparseness sticks out from the rest of the relatively high-energy tracklist. “Jellybones,” which is probably my favorite song from the album, however much that may matter, is an absolute romp comparatively, though both songs are about disease in one form or another. “Jellybones,” focusing on the eponymous and fictitious Jellybones illness, starts with a scrambled synthesizer and ramps up from there, folding in some excellent drumming and a nice backing guitar riff, all gaining energy up until the two-minute mark, where it takes a turn toward a lo-fi acoustic moment.

The album does play frequently with changes of sound and instrumentation. The little recorder solo that intros “Sea Ghost” is unexpected, no matter how many times you’ve heard the album. Whatever penny whistle and fiddle combo going on in the background of “Tuff Luff” sounds like it came right out of an Irish eight-year old’s daydream-turned-nightmare, especially as the lyrics announce that “We’re going down / In smoke flames” and the drums start to hit just a bit harder. It’s cartoonish and terrifying and so, so goddamn catchy.

It’s like the album is explaining death, grief and illness to me by telling me a joke and then setting itself on fire. I hesitate to say this, and I know I’m once again risking That Guyness, but it all borders on the tragicomic: “Tuff Ghost” is about trekking up a mountain and torturing your friends with a made up ghost story; the album begins with “I Don’t Wanna Die” and ends with “Ready to Die.” Yet, very few moments hit like they’re talking about death as a horrific, final thing. It’s more complicated, the unexpected and funny paired with the real and scary — I return to the “asshole of my eye” moment.

I don’t know of many other albums that have captured my imagination in the way this one does. Its chock-full of ghost stories, lyrical oddities and little moments of rebellion. It’s an album that doesn’t explain itself and doesn’t need to — it grows from that mystery and the inability of the long defunct Unicorns to repeat those performances, to unpin and iron out the album’s complexities from what would now be 16 years of repeat performances. To quote drummer Jamie Thompson, they “all hated it like 70 percent of the time,” but at least we all got one completely fun, completely bizarre album from the endeavor.

courtesy Alien8 Recording/Rough Trade Records

Events next week in Tulsa Monday, Oct. 21

David Grann delivers presidential Tenacious D performes at Brady lecture about his bestselling novel, Theatre. Tickets start at $39.50, “Killers of the Flower Moon.”

Lecture starts at 7:30 p.m. in doors open at 7 p.m.

Reynolds center, open to the public.

Circle Cinema screens “Der Golem,” a silent film set in Thursday, Oct. 24 Medieval Prague. Screening starts Circle Cinema screens “Boondock at 7 p.m., tickets are free.

Saints” to celebrate the film’s 20th anniversary. Screening starts 7 Tuesday, Oct. 22 p.m., tickets are $25. Film will be Wilco performs their “Ode to Joy” prefaced with a VIP meet & greet tour with Molly Sarlé at Cain’s with writer/director Troy Duffy Ballroom. Doors open at 6:30 p.m., starting at 5:30. VIP tickets will show starts at 7:30 p.m., tickets be $35, which includes a premier start at $50. seating for the film.

graphic by Emma Palmer Pornhub’s insights page shows statistics about each minute viewers spend on their site.

Pornography distorts images of sexuality and identity Campus organizations facilitated a discussion about the effects of frequent porn visitation on perception of sex.

Stasha Cole Student Writer On the evening of Oct. 16, SAVE, TITAN and TU Panhellenic sponsored an event called “Pop Culture and Trauma: The Implications of Pornography,” in which Kelsey Hancock and Dr. Jennifer Airey facilitated a discussion about the benefits and ramifications of pornography usage.

Dr. Airey kicked off the lecture with a story. She had spoken with a prominent IT worker for TU, and he commented that at any given time, 40 percent of the campus was watching porn. How true that is, Dr. Airey remarked, she had no idea. But, obviously, a discussion about pornography usage would be beneficial to the student population at TU. First, Airey and Hancock discussed Pornhub’s Insights webpage: a review of statistics about use frequency and the mostsearched terms for 2018. According to the website, there were 33.5 billion visits to Pornhub over the year. Pornhub Insights also states that the “92 million average daily visits [is equivalent to] the populations of Canada, Poland and Australia every day.”

As the event flyer advertised, we next “discuss[ed] ways to balance sex positivity

with concerns about consent and violence in porn saturated culture.” The faculty facilitators opened up the discussion to the student audience. The conversation that followed outlined social issues that are perpetuated by the pornography industry such as discrimination, objectification, interpersonal violence and skewed perceptions and expectations surrounding intercourse.

Students and facilitators alike expressed discomfort with the fetishization of races and sexualities in pornography, recognizing how the industry is primarily white, cisgender and heterosexual. Anything deviating from those identity traits is seen as against the norm and is categorized and labeled as something different from the norm.

Further discrimination occurs to the actors, themselves. There are so many disadvantages for female sex workers: they comprise most of the actors in porn, while most of the producers are men. Women are also more likely to get paid less as they keep performing; for each video they star in, their asking rate goes down. This classification of people based on race, sexuality or gender leads to the fixation on and fetishization of these people; it is inherently objectifying and dehumanizing.

The conversation then shifted towards the roles that men and women traditionally play in explicit videos. Airey explained the juxtaposition of important characteristics in casting. She stated, “Girls are there for their looks, men are there for their ability to maintain an erection for a long time, un-

der weird circumstances.” The dichotomy between genders within the porn industry is further summarized by Hancock’s comment: “We don’t think of women as sexual beings; we think of them as sexual objects.”

The porn industry relies on the objectification of and violent actions against women.

Airey mentioned that since the invention of the internet, everyone has access to free porn; she said that the only way to make people continue to pay was to produce more extreme and violent content. Thus, unrealistic and dangerous sexual acts continue to become more normalized in the porn industry. These videos support violence against women and may influence viewers (whether consciously or subconsciously) to perpetuate these same, problematic actions.

Porn is inherently an inaccurate representation of sex. And when boys, on average, are exposed to porn for the first time at age eight and girls at age eleven, according to Airey, their perceptions of sex can become very skewed.

The lecture certainly encouraged students to carefully examine the content that they are consuming to recognize how it could influence their perception of sex, but it did not, by any means, discourage porn usage.

The lecture was a fantastic mix of respectful discussion and honest evaluation. As Airey asked at the end, “What are the ideologies we are being taught as we watch this, and what are the resources we need to think about these things from a literate perspective?”

Kelsey Hancock compiled a list of references for further research, which I have listed below.

Utulsa statistics https://utulsa.edu/sexual-violence-prevention-education/campusclimate/ Further Reading: Levy, A. (2010). Female chauvinist pigs: Women and the rise of raunch culture. Black Inc..

Orenstein, P. (2016). Girls & sex: Navigating the complicated new landscape. Oneworld Publications. (Orenstein also has another book out now called Boys & Sex) Williams, L. (1999). Hard Core: Power, Pleasure, and the” frenzy of the Visible”.

Univ of California Press.

Williams, L. (Ed.). (2004). Porn studies.

Duke University Press.

Gunter, J. (2019). The Vagina Bible: The Vulva and the Vagina: Separating the Myth from the Medicine. Citadel Press.

Taormino, T., Penley, C., Shimizu, C., & Miller-Young, M. (Eds.). (2013). The feminist porn book: The politics of producing pleasure. The Feminist Press at CUNY. Durham, M. G. (2009). The Lolita effect: The media sexualization of young girls and what we can do about it. Abrams.

Muscio, I. (2009). Cunt: A declaration of independence. Seal Press.

Documentaries: “Hot Girls Wanted” “After Porn Ends”

The Collegian: 12

Variety

21 October 2019

“Battleship Potemkin” details revolutionary mutiny Circle Cinema screened Sergei Eisenstein’s 1925 film for their “Graveyard Shift” series.

Justin Klopfer Student Writer Every second Saturday of the month, Circle Cinema shows a classic silent film accompanied by live organ music from an authentic 1928 fully-acoustic organ. This month, they screened Sergei Eisenstein’s 1925 film “Battleship Potemkin.” Robert Donaldson, a local expert on Russian history, gave a brief introduction. He explained that the film was originally meant to contain many episodes of the events that led to the 1917 revolution, but it ended up being only a single episode concerning the battleship.

“Battleship Potemkin” details a mutiny aboard the titular battleship. Vakulinchuk (Aleksandr Antonov), one of the sailors, laments on the horrible conditions he and the other sailors must face. They sleep in crowded cabins, eat rotten meat and are treated brutally by the officers. Pushed to the edge, he fuels a rebellion against the officers and overthrows their leadership. The people of Odessa are rallied when they hear the news, and sentiment against the Tsar’s rule grows.

The film’s brilliance is often associated with the superb “Odessa Steps” scene, where protesters of the Tsar’s rule are massacred on a large staircase. The Cossacks slowly advance, always from the left side of the screen to the right. Their placement at the top of the stairs emphasizes their power over the panicking masses. Close-ups of the catastrophe emphasize its impact on individuals, while long shots show the massive scale of the tragedy. This scene’s depiction of injustice is powerful enough to evoke a real sense of anger in the viewer Brutal violence is also depicted in this scene, and this violence was often censored

in later releases of the film. Censorship also faced the film in England and France, where it was banned for its revolutionary themes.

The film was even censored in the U.S.S.R.: a quote from Trotsky at the beginning was removed after he became Stalin’s political enemy.

This film is actually based on a real mutiny that occurred in 1905. The rebellion is now seen as one of the events which eventually led to the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.

However, the famous Odessa Steps scene didn’t occur exactly as depicted. No massacre occurred in broad daylight at that specific location. There were, however, instances of troops firing on rioters, and historians estimate the deaths to be in the hundreds.

Despite this, many still falsely believe the Odessa Steps massacre occurred precisely as it does in the film. This realism is what makes “Potemkin” so great; it invests the viewer so deeply into the plight of the Russian victims. People want to believe the massacre is real because it lets them further sympathize with the struggle.

“Battleship Potemkin” is also frequently cited as incredibly influential in the advancement of filmmaking, pioneering several cornerstone techniques of the artform. Unlike many movies of its day, “Potemkin” uses many shots and quick cuts to emphasize the urgency of the action. This technique is now a staple of action films, and even non-action movies will use many quick cuts to create a sense of speed.

It’s easy to see why “Potemkin” is one of the most legendary films of all time. The movie is still shown to film students year after year, and not without good reason. Its historical importance, cultural impact and influence on filmmaking are all difficult to understate.

Next month’s silent film will be “A Romance of the Redwoods” and will be shown on Saturday, Nov 9.

courtesy Kino International Sergei Eisenstein’s “Battleship Potemkin” recounts the historical Odessa Steps Massacre.

Where are the members of One Direction now?

Harry, Niall, Zayn, Liam and Louis continue their careers after massive success in the 2010s boy band.

Lizzy Young Student Writer “You don’t know your beautiful, oh, oh, that’s what makes you beautiful,” were the song lyrics by British boy band One Direction (1D) that every teenage girl in America was singing the summer of 2012. 1D was the boy band of the 2010’s, and “What Makes You Beautiful” was by far their most popular song.

1D released several other popular hits and was famous for its cult following. Every teenage girl daydreamed about Harry Styles, Niall Horan, Zayn Malik, Liam Payne or Louis Tomlinson.

The English and Irish teenage boys met on the popular British singing show, “The

X-Factor,” in 2010. Simon Cowell grouped them as a boy band and they placed third on the show. The band went on to release five albums together before going on hiatus in 2016.

What are the boys up to now? Since splitting up, they have all pursued their solo singing careers. First up is Malik, who left the band in 2015.

Malik has released two solo albums since 1D. Less than a year after leaving the band, he released his first album, “Mind of Mine.”

He also released an autobiography in 2016 called, “Zayn: the Official Autobiography.”

In 2017, he collaborated with Taylor Swift on a single, “I Don’t Wanna Live Forever,” which was on the “50 Shades Darker” soundtrack. His latest album, which was released in December 2018 is titled “Icarus Falls.”

As far as his personal life goes, Malik had a high-profile relationship with Gigi Hadid for a few years before breaking up

in early 2019. This past month, Malik listed his Soho apartment for sale, which is a few blocks from Hadid’s New York place.

Styles and his hair were the other highprofile members of the band. Since the band split, he has released one solo album in 2017 titled “Harry Styles.” He also appeared in the war movie, “Dunkirk,” that same year. After his last tour ended in July 2018, Styles has been on hiatus writing music for his next album. He just took a break from his hiatus to release the single, “Lights Up,” last week.

Horan was the Irish member of the band.

He has released a solo album titled “Flicker.” Since his 2017 album and tour, he has released a couple of singles and is currently taking a break to write tracks for his new album.

Tomlinson was the oldest member of the band. He has yet to release a solo album, but he has released a few singles, most recently “The Two of Us” in early 2019. Tomlinson

has also started his own record label, a spinoff of Simon Cowell’s company.

In his personal life, he welcomed a son in 2016 with his girlfriend. Most recently he was a judge and mentor on the US X Factor.

Finally, Payne is the last member of the band. He has released several singles as well as collaborations since 2016. He released his debut EP, “First Time,” in 2018.

He just released a single, “Stack it up,” in September of this year.

He is the second member of the band to have a son, which he welcomed in 2017. He also announced a fashion partnership with the brand HUGO in 2019.

Although the band is no longer together, they seem to be doing pretty well individually. Despite the boy band of my teens no longer being together, I can console myself with the fact that they are still making music. Now, I am going to go listen to “What Makes You Beautiful” for the umpteenth time.

“El Camino” proves to be a satisfying but pointless sequel Netflix incorporated intensity and humor into the “Breaking Bad” sequel, following the story of Jesse Pinkman.

Dominic Cingoranelli Student Writer Before moving into a spoiler-filled discussion, I’ll provide a brief spoiler-free review for anyone who has not seen “El Camino” or “Breaking Bad.” “El Camino,” released on Netflix in early October, follows “Breaking Bad” deuteragonist Jesse Pinkman as he struggles to come to terms with the events that occurred during the series. Vince Gilligan once again delivers a thrilling exploration of the rich and intricate “Breaking Bad”/”Better Call Saul” universe and works as an excellent sendoff to one of the show’s most important characters as he begins his journey towards reconciliation with the past and attempts to survive on the lam. Despite this, the film suffers from the fact that it was not entirely necessary and at times prioritizes fanservice over substance.

To quote “Breaking Bad,” “If you really don’t know who I am, maybe your best course of action would be to tread lightly.”

That’s my way of saying that the rest of this article contains spoilers for “El Camino” (and therefore for “Breaking Bad” as well).

The film begins immediately after Pinkman’s escape from the neo-Nazi meth lab at the end of the series, and he seeks respite with Badger and Skinny Pete. As he showers off months’ worth of dirt, it is evident that he endured trauma both psychological and physical, as the shower triggers a

stressful flashback to one of the occasions where the neo-Nazis used a fire hose to torture him. He shaves the scraggly and matted beard that he grew in captivity, revealing a somber and scarred complexion. This isn’t the same Jesse Pinkman who thought that wire was an element.

Throughout the course of “Breaking Bad,” Pinkman gradually lost his innocence and naivety as he struggled to make a living in New Mexico’s underbelly. The ugliest dregs of humanity confront Jessie, from waking up to find Jane dead, to being forced to kill Gale, to watching Andrea die, to being sold out by Walt and enslaved by the vicious neo-Nazis.

The movie continues this motif, as Jesse engages in an old west-style gunfight with a cocaine junkie to reclaim the money that

Jesse had rightfully stolen. Yes, a gunfight – complete with the twitching fingers hovering over the holstered revolvers and the close-up shots of slowly narrowing eyes.

While enjoyable, this sequence in particular revealed a certain lack of substance which permeated the entire experience.

It’s clear that the filmmakers wanted to have fun making this; it is, after all, a “last hurrah” of sorts for these characters. Jesse was always the strongest comic relief element. Naturally, then, the movie centered on that character is substantially more humorous than “Breaking Bad.” Whereas “Breaking Bad” has a distinctly Walter White-esque grittiness, and “Better Call Saul” is deftly laced with the shadow of Jimmy McGill’s conniving and crooked nature, “El Camino” shows us not only the mature, somber Jesse

courtesy Netflix Pinkman’s unsettling appearance in “El Camino” reflects his loss of innocence throughout “Breaking Bad.”

Pinkman transformed by his tenure with Heisenberg, but also his innate sardonicism and bluntness, which contribute to several humorous scenarios throughout.

“El Camino” is rife with cameos from the series; these serve not only as fanservice but drive the plot forward by revealing crucial information and Jesse’s state of mind. Mike Ehrmantraut introduces viewers to the motif of escape to Alaska; Todd Alquist and his series of flashbacks reveal just how harshly Jesse was treated as a meth slave for the neo-Nazi gang, along with revealing the location of the stash of money Jesse needs to escape.

Walter White’s cameo shows viewers just how far Jesse has come from the knuckleheaded scumbag viewers are introduced to.

Jane’s appearance informs the viewers that Jesse has matured to the point where he will no longer follow those who seem to be more successful than he is, instead forging his own destiny. In stark contrast to Walter White, who lived as a mild-mannered chemist and died as a sociopathic criminal menace, Jesse was dead as a lowlife criminal and is finally alive now that he is free.

Despite the ultimate realization of what is perhaps some of the most nuanced and dynamic characterization ever put to television, this film is fundamentally flawed inasmuch as it did not need to exist. This movie answers questions that nobody was asking.

Jesse Pinkman’s triumphant race from the neo–Nazi compound was in and of itself enough closure to his story, and it is ultimately a joyride through the rich tapestry that is the “Breaking Bad” universe which is enjoyable, but has very little substance.

21 October 2019

Variety

The Collegian: 13

Matt Maeson and The Technicolors perform with heart

The two alternative rock/folk rock musicians brought relatable and heartfelt lyrics to the Vanguard.

Maddie Walters Student Writer Matt Maeson has been an artist that I have wanted to see in concert for quite some time now. His newest album, “Bank on the Funeral,” released earlier this year in April.

His single “Cringe” has gone on to top alternative charts all summer. On Oct.14, Matt Maeson came to the Vanguard, and I was able to finally see him perform live.

Matt Maeson is an alternative rock/folk rock musician from Norfolk, Virginia. He grew up playing at biker rallies and prisons.

He recently embarked on a headline tour in support of his new album. “The Day You Departed” tour made one of its first stops in

Matt Maeson is a musician hailing from Norfolk, Virgina.

Tulsa this past Monday. This show marked Matt Maeson’s first headlining show in Tulsa.

It’s rare to see a show where you like the opener just as much as the headliner. This concert was one of those rare occasions.

I am ashamed to say that I had never heard of The Technicolors before that night.

By the end of their set, they won over a vast majority of the crowd, so much that there was a line almost leading outside the door for their merchandise stand.

The Technicolors are an alternative/indie band from Phoenix, Arizona. This year, they have released four singles.

Their set was the kind of concert that you could definitely bang your head to. I could quite literally feel the vibrations from their instruments.

The Technicolors brought high-energy to the stage that night. My favorite part was

watching the guitarist just getting into the music and his performance.

At about the halfway mark of their performance, lead singer/guitarist, Brennan Smiley, joked, “Thanks for not leaving the room during our set.” To which many members of the audience shouted out things like, “You guys are great,” “I love your bassist” and, “You rock.”

Smiley introduced the final song in their set, describing a feeling of knowing that you don’t belong where you are now and that you have to get out. During this song, “Space Cadets,” Smiley sang, “and I know I don’t belong, I knew it all along. Because I’m just a space cadet with nowhere to lay my head.”

The Technicolor’s final song was so emotionally charged, everyone in the audience could feel it. I think it’s because everyone has felt that way at least once in their life.

At the end of the concert, the members of The Technicolors worked their own merchandise stand. They met their fans, took pictures and signed shirts.

After The Technicolors, it was time for Matt Maeson to take the stage. He started the concert with his song “Me and My Friends Are Lonely.”

After the song ended, he told the audience that he had to be acupunctured and get steroids because his neck was stiff. He joked, “This show is going to be fun. I don’t even know where I am.”

Perhaps the biggest highlight of the entire show was when Brennan Smiley of The Technicolors joined Matt Maeson on stage to sing a cover of the Killer’s “When You Were Young.” Before starting the song, Maeson mentioned that this was the first time they had performed this song together.

photos by Maddie Walters

The Technicolors performed an emotional final song, “Space Cadets.”

He introduced his song “Hallucinogenics” by jokingly asking the audience if we “wanna hear a song about drugs?”

Later, Maeson performed “I Just Don’t Care That Much,” which happens to be my personal favorite. The song is about needing change and time to process; it’s about accepting that you can’t do everything but realizing that you can do enough.

There is nothing better than a great concert, getting to hear amazing artists and singing along to their music. There was a moment during the show when I realized that everyone in the room was having a good time. We were singing off-key and clapping offbeat, but in that moment, it didn’t matter.

We were all content to live in the moment.

If you haven’t heard of either Matt Maeson or The Technicolors, you should definitely give them a listen.

Busy Philipps celebrates Magic City Books anniversary The television star and writer spoke about the anniversary of Tulsa’s independent bookstore as well as the publication of her memoir.

Tori Gellman Student Writer On Saturday, Oct. 12, the IDL Ballroom opened its doors (and its bar) to Tulsa’s literary lovers and fans of nostalgia. For Magic City Books’s two year anniversary, the bookstore brought in self-proclaimed “fourth-tier actress” Busy Philipps.

Philipps’s memoir, “This Will Only Hurt A Little,” set to release in paperback next week, was given in advance to attendees of the event. It was somewhat serendipitous that Magic City Books was celebrating their two year anniversary when Philipps’s book was celebrating its first.

Philipps began the evening with a writer’s inside look at the ridiculousness that is the book industry. “It’s a fucking mess” she announced, following her tale of approaching her local bookstore in Los Angeles on the day her hardcover was supposed to be released and discovering that they had already sold two copies before the release date.

She admitted to the audience that she had been writing this memoir in her head since she was around five years old and that she had to write the book chronologically or the writing wouldn’t get done. Furthermore, Philipps told the audience that she “crashed” her book, meaning that she didn’t turn the completed product in on time, and her editors only had about two weeks to polish and publish the book. Her deadline for the book was in December, which she thought was “outrageous, unreasonable and

stupid.” As a college student, this immediately resonated with me.

Philipps proceeded with a description of her education, explaining that she would take a variety of college courses at a variety of higher education institutions while she was in between acting jobs. In 1999, Busy Philipps starred on the cult classic, “Freaks and Geeks,” which she spoke passionately about. “The networks thought that people weren’t ready for a show like that,” Philipps claimed. This led to a tangent and a theory that Philipps had about how the world broke in 1999 with the rise of mindless, cheap entertainment that men in power promoted and produced. “I’m so glad I didn’t have a boy,” Philipps proclaimed.

Philipps would go on to star in the teen drama, “Dawson’s Creek,” where she would meet lifelong friend Michelle Williams.

Her adult career was mostly confined to “CougarTown” with guest appearances on popular sitcoms such as “How I Met Your Mother.”

However, what Philipps’ claimed she was proudest of was her six-month talk show

on E! Network. The show came about after Philipps earned notoriety for her Instagram stories and her very public opposition to abortion bans and legislation being passed around the country.

Philipps took a moment to explain that her speaking out was in no way to detract from or to overpower the stories and experiences of women who had been speaking out about these topics for years, but rather to use the platform she had to add to the conversation.

When Philipps wrote about the abortion she had when she was 15 in her book, she was terrified that that would be what readers and critics caused a fuss about. She was surprised, and frankly annoyed at the fact that the storm came from the section about the on-set harassment she experienced at the hands of “Freaks and Geeks” co-star, James Franco, a story which she had told publicly several times prior to the release of the book.

Philipps spoke candidly and fondly about her two daughters, Birdie and Cricket, both of whom she claimed to be “woke as fuck.”

courtesy Wikimedia Commons Busy Philipps’s memoir, “This Will Only Hurt A Little,” will release in paperback next week.

This led into a really heartwarming story, and a few joyful tears shed from Philipps, about how her daughters were best friends with her ex-boyfriend’s daughters and that they all went to the same school.

It was at a school performance that she received an email from her publicist asking Philipps to testify in front of congress regarding abortion legislation. She said “of course.” For every woman, for her daughters, she would speak publicly about her decision and her experience. She said before congress, “Believe what you want to believe, but you can’t impose your beliefs on me. I am a woman. I have a body. It’s mine. I get to choose.” Phillips couldn’t resist taking a shot at government officials who she had to sit with as they spouted off religious ideologies and beliefs. “I’m sorry,” Phillips sarcastically began, “I thought there was still this thing about separation of church and state.” The audience roared and applauded.

Philipps discussed many more hot button topics, such as the gender pay-gap and the need for diverse representation in media and Hollywood. She fondly recalled a conversation with Michelle Williams in which she asked, “Who would have thought some random ass girls from Dawson’s Creek would be having to take down the patriarchy?”

Philipps concluded with a Q&A session, moderated by her childhood best friend Emily BB, who had travelled to Tulsa with her.

Philipps ended the night with a bit of advice: “If there’s anything I’ve learned throughout this whole book writing process, it’s that I’m going to embrace the fucking weridness that is me.” I don’t think there could have been a better way for her to close out the evening.

The State-Run Media

21 October 2019

the

State-Run media Smells like musk.

TU to release building-themed candles

The University of Tulsa is rolling out new products that everyone will want on their holiday wishlist.

Sarah Le Banned from Yankee Candle

Scents are simple yet potent things that can bring you back to a special moment in time. If you miss your hometown, chances are, there is a Homesick candle of some apple-cinnamon burgundy-leather amalgamation out there to remind you of Texas. But, TU is your home too, so when you go home for winter break, or once you graduate, take a little piece of TU with you.

Introducing: TU Building Homesick candles.

These candles will take you straight from the comfort of your room to TU campus.

While a full selection of 50+ Homesick candles for each of the buildings on campus will be available for purchase at the TU Bookstore starting in November, here are nine scents expected to fly off the shelves this year.

Lovely Lottie: Experience every single perfume, lotion and candle from Bath and Body Works mixed together, plus the acrid aroma of burnt popcorn and hair.

Juicy John: Undertones of gym socks, microwaved burritos and cotton candy. The cotton candy notes will mentally trigger the piercing shrill of fire alarms thanks to all of the boys who thought they could get away with vaping their sweet, succulent eJuices in the bathroom.

The candles are advertised to burn for eight semesters straight.

Keplinger Keepsake: A seductive waft of cigarette smoke, traces of five different brands of pizza and the breeze of a salty wind will take you directly to a wobbly table in Keplinger, surrounded by ENS students whose faces and books are stained with tears.

graphic by Sarah Le

Rayzor Rain: The world’s first moisturizing candle. It captures Rayzor’s constant mysterious dampness, plus incorporates an ever so gentle wisp of electrical fire. The candle is so moist that it is impossible to light.

Odors of Oliphant: Mingling smells of asbestos, dust and pond scum. This candle has three layers, one for each of Oliphant’s three floors.

Helmerich Hell: Despite Helmerich hosting the business college, it has no business having so many roaches, wasps, flies and other pests roaming the halls. The candle features real, organic chunks of cockroaches found in Helmerich’s bathrooms, and releases the scent of professional plague and pestilence.

Tranquility in Tyrrell: How does this building smell like new cars and dust at the same time? Tyrrell’s mystery is encapsulated in this candle, its scent to be released at your mercy.

Musty McFarlin: A combination of mildew, stagnant water and fresh-brewed coffee is a scent known to all TU students, triggering the universal memory of studying in McFarlin for exams at two in the morning.

The Calm of Collins Hall: Revisit the days when your adventure at TU was just beginning! The scent of the entire student body is encapsulated in this candle, as students from all around the world congregated in Collins Hall during student tours and orientation week to contribute to its air.

You could say that this Homesick candle combines the scent of all Homesick candles ever made. As you burn this candle and reminisce, you may slowly begin to regret ever attending TU. You may begin to burn from the inside out until you and the candle join as one: exhausted, burnt-out mortals in the passing of time.

Tulsa makes several top ten lists for drug use It’s official! Tulsans really like their hard drugs.

Brennen Gray Bath salts boi I know this looks bad, but I can explain.

Tulsa is third in the nation for weed use, sixth in cocaine, sixth in heroin and seventh in meth use. Some critics, negative Nellies and naysayers claim that this is bad press.

But this is where T-Town can finally shine.

First and foremost, our politicians (to be fair, most of whom are at the state level, not the city level) have something to ignore. In fact, they have been so desperately busy finding things to distract them from the drug

problem that everything else seems to be getting done!

Ignoring the drug problem like the plague has led to the City of Tulsa repairing one or two roads, finishing the Gathering Place using someone else’s money and pretending to care about the massive life-expectancy gap between north and south Tulsa.

Another bonus of the drug problem, other than providing motivation for literally everything else to get done, is that it has historically given Tulsans something to do.

Of course, this is less relevant now that Tulsa has more than a dozen businesses total downtown. But during those pre-Blue Dome District early 2000s it’s not like we all had much else to do.

If all this is not quite enough, think about all the worse things we could be doing.

Instead of smokin’ sweet, sweet crystal, we could all be doing something horrible, like humble-bragging about our jobs and internships to everyone we know.

Instead of burnin’ the ganja, we could all be being that guy that that revs his engine at 3 a.m. in a residential area.

Instead of shootin’ the skag, you could be using your even six feet of height as your entire personality.

Instead of snortin’ that good, good pearl, we could all be telling a Collegian writer that his articles are bad even they he works really, really hard on them and deserves respect even if he is a piece of garbage because he’s trying his best and life is hard and not everyone can win a Pulitzer OK?

Just saying! There’s plenty of worse things than just doing a couple drugs.

And another thing: Think about the economic growth!

A million bucks of drugs every few months is money moving. Money moving means a big-time economy. The only real difference between meth and oil is that we can make meth at home, which is much easier than the whole invade-whatever-country-that-has-it thing.

If nothing else, at least Tulsa is being put back on the map. We can always fall back on being known as the city with the most drugs per capita.

Student yelling “Hit me, bitch!” struck by vehicle Determined to get free tuition, TU student risks it all in middle of the street.

Michaela Bueche Not actually a student Many students can be heard all over campus screaming at cars. Some might assume this is an attempt to warn said cars of their presence to avoid getting hit. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, they are screaming things like “Hit me, bitch!” and “Pay my tuition!”

“Why?”, you might ask. We had the exact same question, so we took a trip to good ole’ S Delaware Avenue and waited for some students to show up. When they arrived, they began jumping in front of cars or standing in the middle of the road.

We asked Gilly McGinty, a freshman chemistry major, why she was trying to get hit. She told us, “I can’t afford tuition, let alone all the extra fees for labs. I’ve heard rumors that if you get hit by a car on campus, the university has to pay the rest of your tuition. Then I might be able to afford to eat next week and drown my sorrows in booze.”

While we were interviewing McGinty, another student was heard screaming, “Do it! Hit me!” Next thing we knew, a car ran him over.

The student who was hit was Jimmy John, a junior religion major. He sustained minor injuries, including loss of limb and a spell in a month long coma. Mere flesh wounds, if you will.

We asked Jimmy John why he was trying to get hit, and he told us, “I’m not truly committed to my major, but I’ve already wasted three years in this hell hole. To get a different major, I’d have to spend another four years here and rack up even more student debt.”

“I thought if a car just hits me today, I’ll get free tuition for an actual degree that still exists. Boi howdy! I was sorely mistaken. I woke up from my coma yesterday, and two Campus Security officers (not even the cute ones) were standing over my hospital bed.”

“They told me to receive any injury compensation, I would have to be hit by a campus-owned vehicle like a shuttle bus or one of the Campus Security trucks. Even then, I would maybe get $100 if I were lucky.”

“I shit you not, Campus Security then told me that the ass clown who owned the fuck-

Jimmy John is expected to make a full recovery, in prison.

ing Land Rover that hit me was suing me for damages to their ‘precious baby.’ If you can afford a Land Rover, then you can pay to get my blood cleaned off your damn car!”

“Next, Tulsa Police came to arrest me because apparently being in a coma is evading court dates or some bullshit like that.”

graphic by Emma Palmer

Tulsa Police informed us that Jimmy John is facing charges of resisting arrest, fleeing the scene and attempted manslaughter.

Write in if you think Tulsa Police and Campus Security are overreacting or if all these charges are justified. Tune in next week — same truly committed time, same truly committed channel