Once again, UCSD is the scene of a hate-related incident — but this time, few even know what happened.
The 11th-annual Islam Awareness Week kicked off on Feb. 14. The event, held by the Muslim Student Association, aims to educate the UCSD community by hosting barbecues and sponsoring talks about the rise of Islamophobia and misconstrued Quranic verses. MSA members wanted to clear the violent and popularly accepted misconceptions about the Muslim community, not convert the masses to Islam.

The day I graduated high school, I flung that cap high in the air and never looked back. Don’t get me wrong: I wasn’t one of those awkward social pariahs that ate lunch in the bathroom, but at the same time, going to class for six hours straight and having to ask my parents for permission each time I needed to take the car out wasn’t exactly my (or anyone’s) cup of tea.

Despite doing twice as much as I do now, I still managed to wake up at 6 a.m., pick out my outfit, change my mind, pick something else out and then spend half an hour straightening my hair and doing my makeup.

Two years later, I’m lucky if the clothes I’m wearing off the floor don’t smell like bird feed.

You’d think that I would have more than enough time to keep up my appearance. But you’d be wrong. Somehow, despite the fact that I’m doing less and sleeping more, I still can’t manage to dress myself in a way that would have been even remotely acceptable to the high-school me.

With midterms and papers nearly every week, I feel completely justified wearing sweats — or, on classier days, yoga pants — to school.

My appearance hit an all-time low when I was leaving Ralph’s with a shopping cart and the security guard stopped me.

“Excuse me, ma’am, but you can’t leave the store with that cart.”

“Why not?”

“It’s for in-store use only — not personal use.”
“Personal use? I’m just taking it to my car.”
“We’ve had an increase of your kind using these carts to store their personal belongings. I’m sorry, but I can’t let you leave with it.”
I knew that I wasn’t dressed to the nines or anything, but I didn’t think I looked homeless. Apparently, I was wrong.
That was a wake-up call. It, in combination with my friend stepping on my glasses, made for the perfect opportunity to get my shit together.
It was like a scene out of the “Princess Diaries.” I shoved my collection of Marshall College T-shirts and UCSD sweatpants to the back of the closet and started picking through hundreds of dollars worth of the Forever 21 clothes I accumulated during my brief stint there over the summer.
After doing a once-over of my wardrobe, I decided to lay some very simple ground rules for myself:
1. Sweats and yoga pants are for working out, not for being seen in public.
2. Make-up is your friend.
3. Hair should never resemble Courtney Love’s.

The first few days were a success. Spending an extra 20 minutes on my appearance resulted in waves of compliments from my friends and coworkers. Maybe it’s sad that I was being praised for looking “normal” — something that never would have happened in high school, with all my outfits that were finished off with matching metals and perfectly coiffed hair, but for now, I’ll take what I can get.

Aside from the twice-quarterly LGBT dance and, of course, the annual day-long rager that is the Sun God Festival, there’s usually not much to do on campus. Unlike other UC schools — and nearly every other major university — there’s no Greek row for students to stumble to on a Friday night.
So, in an attempt to solve this social quandary, A.S. Council’s Greek Housing Initiative Committee is looking to have a completely functional, up-and-running Greek row by 2016. And while it’s laudable that the committee wants to spice up the droll social life at UCSD with the best facilities possible, building a $60 million facility from the ground up isn’t the stuff of student government — especially when the UC system’s predicted to be facing a $1 billion budget gap next year.
A Greek row would, without a doubt, be a boon to campus life. UC Berkeley’s sororities and fraternities are the center of its social life and that can primarily be attributed to their Greek row that opens up Greek life to the rest of campus. Here, if you’re not a part of the Greek system, after being bombarded with flyers every Fall Quarter, you won’t likely notice much of them for the rest of the year — save those ubiquitous “Party With Pi Phi” tank tops, anyway.
But despite the benefits of a Greek row, with such fledgling plans in the pipeline, it’s impossible to wholeheartedly approve of the committee’s direction.
First, according to committee chair and Campuswide Senator Michael Raimondi, there’s no current estimate of the total cost. There’s also no estimate of how many houses, in total, a Greek row would require, since there may be new sororities in the works for next year. Without even knowing this basic fact, the budget will have to take into account the possibility of constructing an extra two houses for potential new sororities — an addition that will have a big effect on the cost shouldn’t be taken lightly. (One thing Raimondi does know: He wants Mediterranean architecture.)
Raimondi is hoping the project’s total cost will be under $60 million. If so, Chancellor Fox will have the jurisdiction to sign off on the project; if it’s not, the fate of a Greek row will be left to the mercy of the UC Board of Regents.
Another issue that seems unrealistic is Raimondi’s five-year timeline for completion. Few construction projects of this magnitude, from inception to completion, are realized in so little time; Raimondi himself admitted that the Muir and Revelle College apartments have been in the works for decades — and that’s with a much larger planning committee and much more concrete plans behind them.
In the mold of other UC campuses before it — and after it — UCSD would, ideally, have constructed a Greek row before its 50th anniversary this year. Because it hasn’t, it’s up to campus leaders like Raimondi to get the ball rolling.
It’s important to recognize Raimondi’s drive in tackling such an ambitious project; most campuswide senators  have smaller ambitions, like spearheading local environmental or diversity initiatives, to cement their legacy on council. But until his committee can provide some semblance of a response to the myriad unanswered questions, it’s difficult to call the committee’s optimistic plans anything but naïve.

Readers can contact Cheryl Hori at  [email protected].

Immigration Solution Takes Things Too Far
Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce introduced two illegal-immigration proposals on Feb. 7  that, if passed, would repeal the 14th Amendment.
SB 1308 allows the governor to sign an agreement with other states to make a distinction in birth records, creating a contract where a person can be a United States citizen only if she has at least one parent who is either a citizen or a legal permanent resident. More specifically, SB 1309 stipulates that a child born in Arizona will not attain citizenship unless one of the parents is a U.S. citizen.
The proposals are a response to “anchor babies,”  or the American-born children of illegal immigrants that allow their parents to stay in the country.
It’s a sweeping measure that will open a can of worms. If this measure actually passes, it will allow other states — after necessary legal procedures — to join in Arizona’s new requirements for citizenship. These laws would be a direct challenge to the 14th Amendment, which stipulates that any person born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen.
It makes sense that Arizona, a border state, wants to take action against illegal residents who use their children’s status to stay in the country. What makes no sense is that Pearce’s solution attacks a vital amendment.
America has been anxious about immigration for a century. Before, the supposed threat was being funneled through Ellis Island and the Jews, Irish and Germans were the outsiders.
Today’s immigration problem requires reform, but redefining citizenship, the very basis of American rights, is not the answer. Whether the alternative is amnesty for those already living in the United States or a revised immigration process, the actions worth taking is doesn’t involve changing the Constitution.
— Allison Gauss
staff writer

Bill Would Leave Children Citizenless

Once again, Arizona has proven itself the state to avoid if you’re an illegal immigrant. The state’s legislature is looking to pass a bill that would eliminate birthright citizenship within its borders and prevent children of illegal immigrants from becoming citizens. The bill is misguided because it would leave some children without citizenship.
Under this proposed law, children of immigrants born on American soil would not qualify for jus soli citizenship, or citizenship by birthplace, in their various home countries. Instead, they have to hope for jus sanguinis citizenship, which is possible if one or both parents, depending on the country in question, are already citizens.
Although the bill specifically targets illegal Mexican immigrants in Arizona, it would also apply to immigrants from any country. Unlike Mexico, where a child is automatically granted citizenship if a parent is a Mexican citizen, other countries have more stringent rules.
In countries like Argentina, both parents must be citizens for their child to gain citizenship. If only one parent is a citizen, their child is ineligible for Argentinean citizenship — and if the other parent is not an American citizen, under bill SB 1309, the child would also be ineligible for U.S. citizenship.
In other cases, both parents may not have clear citizenship records, leaving their citizenship status ambiguous. There are many potential floodgates this bill can open. In situations where children lack any formal citizenship, the courts would have to determine the right form of action for each individual case, creating yet another burden to the system.
In a country that celebrates its cultural melting pot, implementing such legislation would be a regressive step in the direction of the pre-Civil Rights era.
— Revathy Sampath-Kumar
Staff Writer

At Least Something is Being Done Right Now

Illegal immigration in Arizona has reached hair-raising proportions — 400,000 entered the state just last year. Though arguments on illegal immigration reform usually end up in a debate on equal rights, at least the proposal to deny birthright citizenship to children of non-citizens shows that state lawmakers are taking action to fix the problem.
Approximately 11.1 million illegal immigrants currently reside in the United States, with 300,000 more crossing our borders each year. Most proposals to curb illegal immigration — like the infamous wall — in Arizona since 2007 have gone nowhere, and immigration reform still remains on the back burner halfway into Obama’s presidency.
The new bill, which reinterprets the 14th Amendment, demonstrates that lawmakers are getting creative with the immigration issue. It might be a drastic measure, but it’s also not finalized yet. There is a lot of room for argument and reinterpretation on the legislative floor.
The children of undocumented immigrants, pejoratively called “anchor babies,” complicate deportation issues, as many judges are unwilling to tear apart families. This measure will simplify the issue of judges having to go case-by-uncomfortable case, looking for a solution to each individual immigration problem.
Detractors may be quick to point fingers and deem the new proposal essentially “un-American,” but the bottom line is, any progress toward a resolution is more than welcome at this point. Although the bill may not be an end-all solution to illegal immigration, the proposition of new ideas still brings us one more option on how to end the issue.
— Hilary Lee
Contributing writer

I don’t care what the color of your bra is, where you put your purse or who your favorite cartoon character is. And for the love of God, please don’t invite me to your virtual Facebook sit-ins demanding world peace. Slacktivism has got to go.
“Awareness” is the favored term among slacktivists, though it offers no tangible goal. Taking five seconds to change a Facebook status that your 700 closest friends may not see won’t stop genocide or prosecute Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Certainly, slacktivism garners awareness, but if everyone knows about a problem and no one does anything about it, we’re back at square one.
At best, some will join a listserv and receive e-mails they’ll never read. At worst, these actions breed complacency. The most quixotic will believe changing their profile picture to a cartoon character means they’ve done their duty in preventing child abuse. More realistic folks understand its limited effect but go along feeling better about themselves and believing it’s better than nothing.
Facebook and Twitter are tools to further engage people, not genuine means of political activism. Having 100,000 people across the world stand in virtual solidarity with the Egyptians, Yemenis, or Tunisians is worthless if they don’t actively condemn these dictators. In Egypt itself, Tweets were mostly used to spread information on where protests were occurring. If the masses simply tweeted “Mubarak resign now #Jan25” instead of gathering in Tahrir Square, the people would be no closer to a democracy.
Egyptians saw the tumult in Tunisia on television, and sought to bring justice to their own nation. Once the Internet was shut off in Egypt, the people still came out to protest and weren’t relying on online updates to encourage them. And despite the alleged power of Twitter in the 2009 Iran protests, the Tweeters were brutally put down by the government. Had the army and police clamped down on the Egyptians as they did in Iran, Mubarak would still be in power. Online media is powerful, but it would be naïve to believe it alone could ignite revolutions.
Admittedly, the new slacktivists aren’t likely to be people deeply invested in politics in the first place. If Facebook existed during MLK’s time, they might have changed their profile pictures to MLK, and then tuned into “The Beverly Hillbillies.” The Internet did not create political apathy, but the two fare well together.
Grassroots change isn’t impossible. The UCSD graduate Laren Poole who co-founded Invisible Children, an organization dedicated to preventing child abduction in Uganda, was able to further its goal by lobbying Congress. In 2009, as a result of Poole’s efforts, President Obama signed a bill to strategize the end of human rights violations and to fund peace. Though websites like Facebook were indeed helpful in promoting Poole’s cause — the activist today claims over 300,000 online fans — it was only through real-life action that progress was made.
Social networking devices can be used to mobilize populations, but they can’t be seen as the end solution when it comes to activism. Joining a Facebook group but not attending planning meetings or protests has, in the end, the same effect as doing nothing at all.

[caption id="attachment_21267" align="alignright" width="200" caption="Erika Johnson/UCSD Guardian"][/caption]

The UCSD Library Committee has outlined a plan to close the CLICS Library for the 2011-12 academic year as part of a $3 million budget cut to the libraries.

“The only we way would be able to absorb a cut the size of $3 million is to close our smaller libraries’ facilities,” university librarian Brian Schottlaender said.

The cut is part of the UCSD’s budget cut of $60 million — based on Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed $500 million budget reduction to the UC system. The library was originally asked by the Campus Budget Office to cut $6 million but the committee said it could only take a $3 million cut.

The closure of CLICS alone would save $450,000 next year.

“We are still in the planning stages and don’t expect a final budget until June or later,” Libraries’ Communications Director Dolores Davies said. “[But] we could conceivably start closing the libraries slated for closure as soon as this summer.”

CLICS is not the only library on campus in danger of being shut down. The Medical Center Library, Science & Engineering Library and Scripps Library will also be closed. The closure of these three libraries would save $645,000.

“We simply can’t continue to absorb additional reductions of this magnitude without consolidating and closing some of our facilities,” Davies said. “There is just no reasonable alternative.”

Select collections and services from these libraries would be consolidated into the Biomedical Library, while collections from the International Relations and Pacific Studies Library would be merged with Geisel Library, forming a single Social Sciences & Humanities Library (and saving $345,000).

Last year, Sixth College senior and then-A.S. President Utsav Gupta sought funding solutions for maintaining library services, but little came of the efforts.

“It was an inside conversation of whether or not there would be any willingness,” Gupta said. “There was no answer to that. I didn’t really push it forward.”

Despite last year’s lack of progress concerning libraries, Gupta said he supports prioritizing the libraries.

“We need places where we can study effectively to achieve the academic mission of the university,” Gupta said. “Residence halls and study halls don’t have an environment that is condusive to higher learning, which a library has.”

Campus Budget Office Assistant Vice Chancellor Sylvia Lepe-Askari said the $60 million cut estimate is based on the fact that UCSD comprises about 12 percent of the UC system.

“No decisions have been made to simply make cuts [right now],” Lepe-Askari said. “If you look at the system-wide total budget and look at the proportional share of the individual campuses, that’s a basic proxy we typically use to allow us to plan [a budget cut].”

Lepe-Askari said the university is looking at other alternatives to address the budget cuts, like grants and bonds.

The books that are currently in CLICS would be returned to the company they were rented from. The computers, on the other hand, would be moved to other parts of campus.

“The library is not only a symbolic, but also a very practical, place for students to study,” Sixth College Senator Parminder Sandhu said. “Closing the library should be a last resort and something that really is kind of in the unfathomable, because we’re an institution of higher learning and the libraries are where people study, where they learn, where they access resources, both tangible and non-tangible.”

Additional disagreements to the closures has been stated by other A.S. councilmembers.

“A lot of students rely on [CLICS] for finals week, because it’s open 24/7 — Geisel barely stays open until 12,” Campuswide Senator and Library Committee member Anish Bhayani said. “And so we’re looking at a huge impact to UCSD students in terms of the library options that they have and the hours that they can utilize the library for studying.”

For the last three years, the libraries, which depend on state funding for nearly 85 percent of their budget, have suffered from budget cuts of $5 million, or 16 percent, of their total budget.

“[So far we’ve managed the budget with] all kinds of cost-cutting around the edges — so we’ve shortened library hours, consolidated service points and reduced information expenditures and we’ve eliminated a bunch of positions,” Schottlaender said.

He said reductions have become increasingly difficult to deal with.

“If we’re asked to take another $3 million cut the next fiscal year, on top of all the cuts we’ve already made, we will not be able to do that by cutting around the edges, because there are no more edges to cut around,” Schottlaender said.

With the state budget plan, UC Berkeley will cut $80.8 million while UCLA will face the largest budget cut at $96 million.

“Berkeley and Los Angeles, for example, will be different, because they’re certainly much more senior and larger campuses.”

The Library Committee meeting is scheduled for March 5, after Acting Senior Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs Suresh Subramani reviews how other departments are absorbing cuts.

UCSD Budget Office Assistant Director Blair Stephenson said it is too early to tell how the $60 million cut will affect other areas of campus.

“The whole campus is planning cuts, but there’s nothing that has been identified on where the cuts are going to be,” Stephenson said. “It’s more of a potential response to the cut, but the campus hasn’t even allocated how the $60 million would be distributed across the campus — we’re so early in the planning stages right now.”

Stephenson said his office is examining the impact of previous cuts.

“We knew this year would be worse than the previous year,” Stephenson said. “The budget office is now getting a sense of what that would look like and campus leadership is looking at how they can address the budget crisis.”

He said he is concerned about the 7-percent fee increase that may take place next year, based on a legislative analysis published by the Sacramento Bee in a Feb. 14 blog post.

“If budget cuts grow, there may be a seven percent fee increase,” Stephenson said. “That’s one of our greatest fears right now. Students will be impacted [and] we may have less faculty, less TAs, higher fees — any scenario you can think of is a possibility.”

Additional reporting by Laira Martin and Regina Ip.

One of the biggest misconceptions about going Greek is the idea that you’re paying for friends.

The paying part is true: To be a part of a fraternity or sorority, there’s the requisite dues, which range from $100 to $600 a quarter — the cost depends on your chapter and what the chapter uses the money for (trips, events, T-shirts and recruitment). It’s a pretty hefty chunk of change, but after being a sorority member for a quarter, I know that you aren’t paying for anyone to hang out with you. You’re paying for events planning and to do things you otherwise wouldn’t do.

The transition from not being affiliated to being a part of Greek life is similar to the transition from public to private school. Having attended both, the best things about public school are that there are more people and fewer restrictions, from what one can wear to what she can do and say. This freedom comes at the low, low price of: nothing!

The freedom is sort of what it’s like to not be in the Greek system at UCSD: You control where your money goes and aren’t required to uphold a certain image.

Greek life is more like private school, but there’s more to it than just rules and tuition. A private system can offer a smaller, tight-knit community that makes it easier to build relationships and make connections. As a part of a sorority, new job and internship opportunities are open to me.

For example, whenever a girl is leaving an internship, she’ll open the position to her sisters before the job is posted on Port Triton. I’ve heard countless anecdotes about employers displaying preference for a candidate because she was part of the same fraternity or sorority.

To be able to go to an enormous public school and also be a part of a smaller community that knows you as more than another cog in the system is really the best of both worlds.

One girl pointed out that she could find better ways to spend her money every quarter doing what she wanted to do, rather than having the sorority spend it for her. And while that may be true, without the sorority I wouldn’t have done much with my money anyway.

So, having a sorority plan events for my friends and me is a gift that keeps me from staying in and watching “Top Model” reruns. My first quarter of being in a sorority, I learned how to play football and salsa dance, competed in a tug-a-war competition (harder than it looks — trust me) and relived my youth as I darted between the different bounce houses at Pump It Up.

I’ve learned that going Greek is not paying for friends: It’s about paying to do things with friends. I’m happy to try new things with my sisters, I’m happy that there’s always something to do when I need a study break and, most of all, I’m happy that I get a senior prom re-do every quarter — and, this time around, without the awkward science teacher in the corner.

Apologies Just Won’t Cut it This Time

Chick-fil-A, the popular restaurant chain known for its boneless chicken breast sandwich, has recently been recognized for something other than clogging customers’ arteries.

In offering free catering to a marriage seminar hosted by the Pennsylvania Family Institute — one of the state’s largest anti-gay groups — Chick-fil-A has made it clear where it stands in the cultural debate over gay rights.

Pennsylvania Family Institute President Michael Geer hasn’t been shy about his anti-gay views, so it’s no wonder that gay-rights groups proposed boycotting the chain.

To combat the bad press, Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy posted a video on the company’s Facebook fan page on Jan. 11 to clear its name. He claims that despite the fact that his company openly supported the denial of gay rights, the restaurant strives to “serve all people and values all people.”

That promise isn’t good enough. It will take a lot more than a Facebook apology for the sake of damage control to temper offended customers.

While Chick-fil-A may only be a fast food company, the idea of a major employer making an overt, public statement against civil rights is unacceptable in the 21st century. Espousing certain religious agendas is one thing, but Chick-fil-A executives must realize this denial of civil rights will incur a public backlash — one that may hold fiscal repercussions for the family-owned chain.

At the end of the day, despite the company’s discriminatory stance on gay marriage, Chick-fil-A must value profits gained from all customers — no matter their sexual orientations.

— Lexi Halamandaris

Staff Writer

Private Companies at their Will

Fried poultry chain Chick-fil-A is the latest subject of financial contribution scrutiny. The Georgia-based restaurant chain has come under attack for catering a marriage seminar for the Pennsylvania Family Institute, an anti-gay organization.

Chick-fil-A isn’t the first to use products as a vehicle for Biblical values. Forever 21 and In-N-Out both conceal Biblical references on the bottoms of shopping bags and milkshake cups, but these idiosyncrasies haven’t caused grievances with patrons the way politically fueled donations do. President Dan Cathy claims his franchises donated food like they would to any community event, and that the company refrains from identifying with any agenda.

Even if it did choose to identify with a political agenda, Chick-fil-A is completely within its rights to support movements and figures it favors, but it shouldn’t expect everyone to be on board with their decisions. Private companies like Chick-fil-A have no responsibility to act as delegates to their customers.

We must accept that once our money leaves our pockets, it becomes subject to the whims of richer executives who will fund what they may: another yacht, a cohort’s bid for Congress or a crusade to push an ideology over a population wider than their customer base. This is probably why Chick-fil-A promotes their creed in a public forum.

Yes, they want to maintain the sanctity of marriage by donating processed chicken nuggets and brownies, but they reap yet another benefit: free advertising. In the end, no matter the repercussions — good or bad — Chick-fil-A has jurisdiction to do whatever it wants.

— Alex Pakzad

Staff Writer

After about my first week in Spain last quarter, I’d learned a couple valuable lessons: If you ever have to tell someone you’re American, say you’re from California. And if you have to tell people you’re from California, it had better be San Francisco.

So, accordingly, that’s how the story went: A native of the city (never “San Fran” or “SF” — always “the city”), I’d come to Barcelona to improve in Spanish, bask in the Mediterranean sun, blah blah blah. Where appropriate, I’d maybe mention my school in a forgettable little town of flip flops and ceaseless sunshine called San Diego, but mostly I projected the fantasy of a life spent traversing urban hills — a constant, treacherous undertaking to be paused only for the sake of talking about progressive ideas with other progressive people or hitting up the nearest gay bookstore. Such was the life of a San Franciscan.

Seldom would I mention the reality of my roots: suburban flatlands half an hour south of the city; Barnes & Nobles with “Out” and “The Advocate” and occasionally something in parental-advisory plastic wrap at the top of the magazine rack. Never would I have anything positive to say about the sprawling, cultureless vacuum 300 miles down the coast that is Los Angeles.

The NorCal/SoCal debate isn’t a new one at UCSD, and inevitably devolves to a back-and-forth on about three points: burrito quality, year-round climate and the superfluous use of the word “hella.” In Spain, it was nice, for a change, to spread the gospel of the Bay Area rather than argue the usual pros and cons.

But despite any deeply ingrained, groundless prejudices against the City of Angels, after a month back at school, I needed at least a couple days away. When a friend offered up a mattress at UCLA last weekend in exchange for a ride, I suspended my judgment and packed the car.

While I’m not quite ignorant enough to believe my 36 hours there summed up everything L.A. has to offer — I didn’t, for starters, get to watch Lindsay Lohan being dragged in handcuffs from Forever 21 — I think I covered most L.A. college-student bases.

I window-shopped at recession-unfriendly retailers; I watched the sunset from the Santa Monica pier (O.K., definitely not the stuff of true Angelenos); at night’s end, I gazed, awe-struck, at the six-foot-long letters gracing the bottom of a frat-house swimming pool. Because real fraternities own 6,000 square-foot houses with custom swimming pools, apparently. There’s one lesson my UCSD education failed to impart.

My friends from L.A. insist that the city changes you. No matter your place in society, I’m told, you can’t leave without a haircut, multiple shopping bags and a renewed sense of self-loathing. I’ve always been a little skeptical: Sure, L.A. may be a miserable enclave of the self-absorbed, but it couldn’t be that powerful. No way. It’s not like there’s anything but fluoride and chromium in the water.

Oh, how wrong I was. Eighteen hours in, I’d found myself in Santa Monica, Coffee Bean cup (a la Mary-Kate Olson) in one hand, Fred Segal shopping bag in the other. I’d long since realized the urgent need for a new hairstyle when someone asked me what brand my shoes were. I told him, none too bashfully, that people don’t just ask questions like that at UCSD, that that kind of thing was stupid and shallow and didn’t matter. (Then: “Ted Baker.”)

You might not expect the grass to be greener with all that pollution and insecurity in the air, but driving down Sunset Boulevard on the morning of our departure, pulled up at a stoplight next to a commercial filming in progress, it was impossible for my friend in the passenger seat — an actual San Franciscan — to contain her wonder: Was that the Chateau Marmont? Were we really about to turn onto the Hollywood Walk of Fame?

“You know,” she said, head turned toward the passing monuments to Barbra Streisand and Destiny’s Child, “I can almost see why people might like living here.”

Eyes focused on the road ahead, squinting to make out another camera crew or the sign for Interstate 101-S, I vocalized my assent (“um, yeah”) and continued out into the smoggy unknown. If we’d stayed too much longer, I’m afraid, I might have forgotten all about the gospel of the Bay.

Come Election Day, all students will receive a special present from the A.S. Council: free A.S. lecture notes. Officially titled the “Resolution to Support Student Voting,” this new measure is intended to urge students to vote by giving free online access to A.S. lecture notes, thus leaving students free to skip class and head to the booths. The measure was originally proposed by A.S. intern Arshya Sharifian, and passed last Wednesday.

The lecture note initiative will start on Nov. 8, 2011 and, according to A.S. President Wafa Ben Hassine, each successive A.S. Council will determine if the program continues.

It’s great that A.S. Council wants students to take part in every November election. According to Sharifian, this is council’s effort to recognize that it’s hard to get out and vote, and their attempt to make sure it happens. And sure, it’s nice that students in participating classes will have free access to A.S. lecture notes on election days. But let’s be realistic — the connection between receiving free notes and voting is tenuous at best.

It’s important to remember that before students are even able to enter the polls and cast their ballots, they have to register to vote. According to Anthony Eastman at the County of San Diego Registrar of Voters, UCSD voter turnout reached 81.5 percent at last November’s midterm election, with 2,655 ballots cast  out of 3,259 registered voters on campus.

Though turnout itself is high, the actual number of registered voters on campus comprises only 9 percent of students — an embarrassingly small percentage. In a perfect world, free lecture notes might be incentive enough to go out and vote, but a day’s worth of free notes isn’t going to be enough to persuade them to the polls — or, more importantly, to register in the first place.

So when only about 9 percent of UCSD undergraduates are even registered, A.S. Council’s priorities should be directed to incentivizing people to take the first step to voting, not targeting the few on campus who have already expressed a semblance of political activism.

In recent presidential elections, voting turnout has increased among voters ages 18 to 29, which goes to show that students — and the entire rest of the population — will vote if motivated, obstacles be damned. So, it’s not a big leap to assume students that truly care about voting can find 15 minutes between lectures to hit the polls. Students who care enough about politics or have enough civic responsibility to vote will undoubtedly take the time out of their day — even if it does mean missing lecture. And if you’re not registered to vote, then come Election Day, all the A.S. Council motivation in the world won’t bring you to the polls.

The ones who aren’t interested won’t be tempted by a day of notes that they can get for free whether they register or not. And the notes, being online, are available to everyone, voter or not. One way to get around the problem of students abusing the free lecture notes is requiring voters to show their “I Voted” stickers. That way, those who actually take the time to vote will benefit, while those who weren’t planning on voting might be given a little extra incentive to hit the polls.

Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of professors don’t even use A.S. lecture notes. In fact, only 35 professors out of 1,057 subscribe to the service — most students just rely on podcasts and professors’ online notes or friends in class when they miss lecture.

While students in those 35 classes will be benefiting from the new measure, the resolution has negligible effect on the rest of the university. Those students are such a small minority that A.S. Council’s measure will be little more than symbolic.

Additionally, the November voting season happens to overlap with midterms — and we all know that simply putting A.S. lecture notes online won’t be enough motivation to convince any “true” UCSD students to leave their textbooks or venture out of Geisel Library’s hallowed halls to vote. This November’s election in particular, the first one during which this service will be offered, is one with few voter-mobilizing measures on the ballot, meaning that it’s not a good year to measure the success of the program.

Finally, free lecture notes won’t matter much if students have classes that take attendance. If council really wanted to take a stand in favor of voting, it could try to convince professors not to schedule midterms or papers on Election Day.

Instead of just helping those already involved, council should focus its efforts on initiatives like its voting drives.

To motivate students to register, A.S. Council should focus more on raising awareness. In addition to their voting drives, council could publicize polling booths, post more flyers and even send e-mail reminders.

In truth, students will most likely not even hear of this new measure, unless A.S. Council wants to throw down money to promote the campaign.

In the end, A.S. Council has the right idea in wanting to motivate students to vote, and this initiative certainly doesn’t hurt. But with all the obstacles working against it, councilmembers will have to hit the ground running to ensure that it doesn’t become another ineffective waste of time and energy.

Additional reporting by Cheryl Hori.

Readers can contact Margaret Yau at [email protected].

WOMEN’S BASKETBALL — The UCSD women’s basketball team capped the weekend with two wins at home, beating San Francisco State 59-52 on Thursday and upsetting No. 25 Cal State Monterey Bay in a 58-48 victory on Spirit Night on Saturday.

The Tritons cut it close in their game against bottom-of-the-conference San Francisco State, letting a 21-point lead dwindle down to just seven points with less than two minutes left to play.

With a nine-point cushion at halftime, the Tritons began the second half by going on an 11-2 run to increase their lead to 20 points, at which point the Triton starters were replaced by a young UCSD bench.

Within the next 10 minutes, Gator forwards Sherika Miller and Dominique Miller led San Francisco State in a 20-5 run, cutting the deficit to just seven points.

With the game in danger, head coach Charity Elliott put her starters back on the court to finish the match, holding out for a 59-52 win.

“Any time I have an opportunity to get some more experience for the younger kids, I want to do that,” Elliott said. “But, obviously the most important thing at the end of the night is to get the win. I felt like we were too panicky, too timid, and we turned the ball over too many times.”

Junior guard Chelsea Carlisle led the Tritons in scoring, finishing 15 points on the night. Junior center Lauren Freidenberg recorded 11 points, while junior guard Daisy Feder ended the night with 10 points.

The Tritons then took on nationally ranked Cal State Monterey Bay on Spirit Night this past Saturday. Playing in front of 1,049 supporters, the Tritons battled a tough Monterey squad — who held an 18-1 record overall — before handing the Otters their second loss of the season.

Four Tritons scored in double-digits against the Otters. Carlisle, Freidenberg and Feder had another strong offensive showing, while sophomore guard Emily Osga recorded her second double-double of the season with 10 points and 12 boards.

But the game was won on the other end of the court, as UCSD held Monterey Bay — a team that averages 41 percent from the field — to just 28 percent shooting. The Otters shot an abysmal 17-of-60 from the field, and finished only eight out their 30 free throw opportunities.

“Our defense kept us in this game,” Carlisle said. “We weren’t shooting well, but we defended like we never defended before. And this crowd, they propelled us, they gave us the energy we needed to get this win.”

The Otters took the early lead with a jumper from center Julie Heurung, but back-to-back layups from Carlisle and Osga secured a lead for the Tritons that would last the duration of the match. The Tritons extended that lead to as many as 16 points with five minutes remaining in the first half. The Otters never closed the gap to less than four for the rest of the game.

Elliott lauded her squad for the win against the conference’s top team.

“I am so proud of this team,” Elliott said. “I am so proud how we just buckled down and we fought and we fought and we fought. Monterey is a great team, and I’ve thought we really did a fantastic job defensively sticking to the game plan.”

With the pair of wins, the Tritons improve to 14-9 overall and 12-4 in the CCAA, where they sit in fourth place.

UCSD has two more games at home this week. The Tritons will host Cal State Stanislaus on Thursday, Feb. 10 and Chico State on Saturday, Feb. 12.

Readers can contact Rachel Uda at [email protected].

There are two types of people in the world: those who are punctual, and those who are like me.

When it comes to being on time, despite all efforts at avoiding the ‘snooze’ button, it just doesn’t happen for me. My internal gauge that determines how long something will take is permanently defective.

So it’s lucky that, growing up, my dad taught me some of the best excuses for every occasion.

The all-purpose: “There was a terrible accident down the block! I think it was a three-car pile-up. I hope no one got hurt.” The moderately urgent: “I’m one exit away” (as I pull out of my driveway). And, the gutsiest of all: “I locked my keys in the trunk of my car and I don’t have a spare.  The AAA guy is breaking into my car as we speak … be there as soon as I can.”

Despite the bad karma that’s accumulated over these years I’ve been driving, I’ve learned two things about myself.

First, I hate people who are early, even if it’s just by a few minutes. They’re either way too eager to see me, or they just don’t have a life — either way, it’s unnatural.

But on the flipside, I’ve become envious of the punctual.

They don’t have to constantly apologize for circumstances “beyond their control.” And since they’re not late, they’re not inclined to speed, which means the wonderful California Highway Patrol won’t  be inclined to write them $400 tickets. (Not that I’m speaking from personal experience or bitterness.)

So, after Googling how to “not be late,” WikiHow gifted me with, of all things, a 12-step plan. It just seems excessive — it’s not like I’m an alcoholic, and this really shouldn’t require that many steps — so I only read the first four.

The first step is self-actualization: “Acknowledge you have a problem.” (Done.)

Be conscious of the time. (Well, no shit. I know what time it is, I just can’t control how long it’ll take me to get somewhere.)

Don’t hit the snooze button. (Ha. We’ll see how that goes.)

Commit yourself to be 15 minutes early. (Finally, something I can work with.)

The day after this extensive academic research, I had a job interview at 1 p.m. Following this plan, I figured I should try to be there at 12:45 p.m. Driving down Miramar Road, it was just my luck: Every single light I hit turned red. Of course.

This must be all that bad karma finally catching up to me. As I pulled into the Panera Bread parking lot, I checked my phone: 1:03 p.m. Not bad.

Later that day, I had a 4 p.m. class. Usually, it takes me 30 minutes from walking to the Arriba stop to pulling into the Mandeville bus loop. That day, I left 45 minutes early. Stepping off the bus, I had an extra 15 minutes to kill — and that could only mean one thing: Mandeville Coffee Cart and hottie grad-student patrol. Maybe there’s something to this whole ‘punctuality’ thing after all.