7 questions to consider before changing the WWU mascot

People don't like change. Even if it is positive (getting married, moving to a new state for your dream job, and so on), you have to trust that the benefits will outweigh the costs of making the change.

While I was in DC for the  2015 International Drug Policy Reform Conference, I found a Western Front article that talked about changing the Western Washington University mascot. According to a communications professor and some student leaders, there are certain problematic features of Victor E. Viking:

1) Hyper-masculine

2) Not representative of students of color

3) Problematic racial character

"Don't get rid of me, mothafucka"

WWU President Bruce Shepard lays out his opinion (and call for discussion) about this matter on his blog. I agree with him on several points. I am also of the opinion that while we may not change it (at least for a while), that it warrants discussion, like many other topics.

1) Do students actually want this change?

Personally, I feel that most people don't want a mascot change because of...change. This is not to dismiss the validity of these sentiments, but being resistant to change is not a reason to completely block off a dialogue. Of what I've seen on Facebook and Yik Yak, an attachment to being a Viking is what most students cite as a reason to not change the mascot. If the majority of students want to keep the Viking mascot, then why force a change? It may be a different story if the school had the name of a Native American group without their permission.

2) Is there an urgent need to change it?

Last time I checked, vikings don't exist anymore and Norwegians don't have a claim on their historic predecessor. If this had been a debate raging for years, I may be more inclined to say that we should look into a change. However, this is not the case. Is this controversy the beginning of a multiple-year debate? Maybe, but we can't be so sure. Time will tell.

3) Will the school spend over $100,000 for a new mascot logo design as they did with the Western logo?

Like it? You better - it cost over $100,000

4) Are our efforts better placed somewhere else?

Western would have to spend money to come up with logos for a new mascot. That would also mean departments, sports teams, etc. would have to use up resources to accommodate the new mascot. (Anyone want these old Viking sweatshirts?) I have seen many people on Yik Yak say that the school could accomplish more useful things by allocating resources to other projects that actually make a difference, and, frankly, I agree.

5) Are there any other drawbacks to changing the mascot?

Would certain alumni stop donating to the school? Are more people going to hate the new mascot than the current viking? I'm not sure if any of these fears are legitimate, or if I could come up with any, but people who want to help shape the decision in any way should become aware of any potential drawbacks.

6) Could the mascot be slightly modified?

While the role of a woman in viking culture is disputed and not necessarily what we would hope for, the school could consider making multiple versions of the mascot, including women. (Those horned helmets weren't real, so why can't we have an evil-looking female viking?) If the mascot being "hyper-masculine" is a concern that resonates with a number of students, make it look more like Sokka.

7) How do we decide on whether or not to change the mascot?

Why is it that a mascot change gets its own poll while every other issue and concern of the students has to go through the AS Elections? Are polls reserved for very serious issues? Does the AS know that they will not get a response representative of the student body? (Hasn't stopped them before.) Most importantly, is a poll the best way to gather data to make the decision on whether or not to keep the mascot? (And who actually makes that decision?) At least in the AS Elections, students can pretend that their vote actually matters. My thoughts on this are that if the discussion of whether or not the viking is a worthy mascot continuously comes up throughout the years, it deserves the same treatment as the Greek system on campus. For those who don't know, Western does not have any fraternities or sororities, but every certain number of years, students get to vote on whether or not they feel that it's addition needs to happen. Needless to say, the students overwhelmingly feel there is no need for a Greek system. I, like Bruce Shepard, feel like it would have been a good idea to introduce a referendum for the Elections in the past to see how students would respond.

Whether your reading responses to the mascot controversy via Yik Yak or through other bloggers, at least consider the viewpoints of the other side. I don't think a mascot change is necessary, but I'm open to listening to those who feel like it's not representative of the school. As for if a mascot change is made, I think it'd be cool if Western got suggestions from the Lummi or another Native American tribe about potential mascots. It may not be representative of most students at Western, but it's a great tribute to the region.

Feeling too small to have an impact - qualms as a student drug policy activist

Around noon today, I decided to end the campaigns of two initiatives that a couple of us, on behalf of WWU Students for Sensible Drug Policy, were working on to get onto the AS Elections ballot this year. The first one was for the Associated Students to urge the AS Board of Directors to incorporate policies into their legislative agendas that support the federal legalization of cannabis - both marijuana and industrial hemp.

The other initiative was to get the AS to push Residence Life to implement a Good Samaritan Policy within the halls, and have ResLife work with University Police to produce a compact substance policy guide for the entire campus.

Because the AS Elections Code hadn't been published in time for when the language of any initiatives had to be turned in to the AS Board of Directors, I had to go to a board meeting to request an extension for the deadline, which was granted. However, in order to have an initiative even be considered for the ballot, it has to be passed by the AS Board of Directors. The next board meeting, I gave information about both initiatives for the board members to consider. The next board meeting, a couple of others from the campaigns told the board members any more information that was needed (since I was in Salt Lake City at that time), and the board determined that the initiatives would be allowed on the ballot. All of that happened in the span of three weeks - one board meeting per week. The next step was to collect the AS Elections information packets and petitions for each respective initiative. At Western Washington University, each initiative petition needs to have at least 696 valid signatures in order to get onto the ballot. That is, 5% of the vote.

Two years ago, I ran for Vice President for Student Life, and last year, I ran for Vice President for Activities and sponsored the opposition campaign for the referendum that asked if students wanted to make the school a smoke-free campus. (I lost both races, and the majority of those who voted did so in favor of making a smoke-free campus, but it was close, so the school decided to compromise instead.) As a candidate, you have to collect only 150 signatures. Both years, I was able to pretty easily get all of the signatures I needed. (It was a hassle, but doable.) I thought that with a couple of other people helping me and a longer timeline, that we would be able to collect all of them. Nevertheless, because of the delay in getting the initiatives approved and the occurrence of spring break, we didn't get the initiative packets until a week ago, which meant that we were supposed to collect all of those signatures within one week. (So much for the longer timeline.)

Keep in mind that the three or four of us working on the campaigns have busy lives of our own - classes, work, etc. Probably the biggest hurdle though was that we weren't allowed to utilize any physical campaigning materials. Physical campaigning isn't allowed for any candidate or initiative campaign until a certain date. In order to to find people to sign the petitions, you...find people. What I usually did for my personal campaigns was go to Academic West, Miller Hall, and the Viking Union to find people sitting and eating, studying, or conversing, and give a short speech, answer any questions they had, and gave them the petitions to sign if they so chose to. Because initiatives require so many more signatures, I quickly learned that my default method would not give us enough signatures in time. I emailed a couple of school clubs and professors to see if they would allow me to talk to their members/students. But again with our schedules, we didn't have time to go to many classes or clubs.

On Thursday, I started to feel hopeless. I noticed that I was incredibly sluggish, and whichever organ in my lower abdomen that aches and makes my body tremble was doing just that (I think it means I need more sleep), so instead of dedicating more time to collecting signatures, I went home to eat and take a much needed nap. At the SSDP meeting later that day (and right after my nap), we expressed our concerns, but I still made the push to try to get all of the signatures we needed by the deadline. Before and after the meeting, I did not physically feel well. My chest was hurting and I couldn't comfortably walk at the brisk pace I normally do. I had no idea if the chest pain was due to my asthma, stress, or both.

During my weekend trip to Seattle to put up flyers on campuses for Students For Liberty (join the Campus Coordinator Program), spend Easter with my older sister (which I wasn't expecting to do), and other shenanigans (use your imagination *wink*), I thought hard about how to go about collecting the rest of the signatures needed for the initiative petitions...or if it was even worth doing it anymore. Talking to the other campaign members on Thursday, it was very clear that we were all both physically and emotionally exhausted from work and classes, and to have to collect nearly 700 signatures on top of that was not comforting. I have had a few people tell me that I have this "flame" within in me that never dies out and keeps me going. This flame told me on Thursday that we still might have what it takes to get all of the signatures. While I do believe in hard work and looking on the bright side, I see myself as a realistic optimist. My optimism is grounded in reality, or so I like to think. 

This morning, I realized how unsuccessful this whole thing had been, and any attempts this late in the game to collect the rest of the signatures would be fruitless. By this point, my stress levels were astronomical. The desperation and helplessness I felt was terrible. If any of you have had depression or depressive symptoms, you are probably familiar with that feeling of not even wanting to try, and even if you do, it would't even help. It was similar to that.

If you can't tell, these initiatives are important to me. I try to do everything in my power to ensure that marijuana, both medical and recreational, and industrial hemp will become legalized on the state and federal levels in the United States. With the substance policy initiative, I can't help but be haunted by the thought of how many students on campus get in trouble within the next school year because of unclear substance policies, or even worse, getting into trouble for calling for help. Or having an unnecessary death because people were too afraid to call for help. The cannabis legalization initiative is one we have been trying to get onto the AS Elections ballot for three years now. The first year, the sponsor was working on it all by himself. Last year, we had a delay in the approval of the initiative. I thought the third year, for sure, had to be our lucky year.

Between now and next AS Elections, we will be working on trying to see what we can do with these two initiatives without going through the election process. For example, talking with ResLife and the University Police to see what they think about working together to come up with a single, compact substance policy guide. If it works, great. If not, we could use any knowledge gained from those interactions and go through the AS Elections process again. However, what's nice about having campaigns like these is that they are more likely to gain more publicity than anything else would. What else we will work on is coming up with ideas on how to work smarter, and not necessarily harder - obtaining more campaign members, reaching out to more professors, clubs, etc. I also plan to talk with the AS myself to share my concerns with their standards on how initiatives can get onto the ballot. I know some other people who have worked on initiative campaigns, and it's relatively known that the AS Elections cater more towards candidates than initiatives.

When I finally messaged the campaign members about how I felt about suspending both campaigns, I felt really empty inside. This was originally going to be a Facebook update, but I decided to put this on here because it ties into political activism. Not to mention, look at how long this post is! All of the work we put into this would come to nothing. When I ran in the AS Elections, I at least was allowed on the ballot and had a fun experience. With this, I ran myself into the ground, had to give up on an avenue to address some very important issues I care about, and don't even have an awareness campaign we could utilize (at least through the AS Elections). I wanted to cry, but I just didn't feel sad enough to actually do so. Tonight would have been one of those nights where I go to a bar to do homework and drink some beer, but I need to catch up on sleep.

It annoys me when some people don't even want to attempt _________ because they're "just one person," or "the system is too big and corrupt." I constantly put myself out there because I sincerely believe that an individual is an essential component to a group or a cause. When I went sign waving in downtown Bellingham because I was angry that nobody seemed to be paying attention what was going down with Syria because they were too distracted by Miley Cyrus, I didn't actually think I would influence individuals with actual powers on US-International relations. I did have people come up to me and ask what was going on. I made people pay attention. I don't know if I actually made a long-lasting impact on anybody, but if I can positively influence one person with my actions, I can say that what I do is worth it. With failing at getting these initiatives onto the ballot, I feel small. While I would have loved to put in more effort to gather signatures, my health and grades can handle only so much extra stress.

I don't like to fail. Because of suspending these campaigns, I feel like a disappointment to myself and others. These were supposed to be more than "feel good" campaigns. I wanted them to bring about tangible results, or at the very least, produce a snowball effect. In order to rid myself of these bad feelings, I am going to analyze on how we can still get these campaigns going (whether it be working outside of the AS Elections or in next year's), forget the disappointments, and move on. I like to learn from the past, not have it control me. It's so hard to put this past me, but I am looking at the bigger picture. A little setback will not tarnish what I ultimately believe in. This has definitely been a low point in my political activism, more specifically, my drug policy activism. I cannot help but feel that smarter and safer drug policies are not being implemented fast enough. This ordeal does not help with that. If this was a low point, I am going to eventually find another high point. Since drug policy is a topic I will probably be drawn to for the rest of my life, I will exposed to both low and high points. Let's look forward to the high.

Why I will never work with the Leadership Institute

Important note: As mad as I am with the Leadership Institute and the individuals who work there, I am not willing to expose identities, hence you will notice ambiguous gender pronouns and the use of "he/she" throughout.

It was fall quarter of 2013 when I was first contacted by someone via the Western Libertarians Facebook page from the Leadership Institute. I was told that if our club worked with them, that they would give us resources in order to help us. While this was tempting, I had to know:

1) Whether or not we should associate with a conservative organization.

2) If the Western Libertarians would still have agency and maintain our independence if we worked with them.

My first year at Western Washington University, the Western Libertarians had joint meetings with the College Republicans. When I became president spring quarter of that year, I decided to still have the joint meetings for the remainder of that school year, but separate the next. The reason for this is that I found that people did not seem to know the difference between conservatism and libertarianism, and I did not want to help contribute to that line of thinking. Not to mention, by focusing more on libertarianism, the club would be able to explore more topics that Republicans generally do not like or touch upon. However, for the sake of networking and access to resources , I decided that it would not be bad to become associated with the Leadership Institute. For the record, if a liberal/progressive organization comparable to them had contacted us, I would have probably gone through a similar mental process.

The Western Libertarians was founded as an independent club - not a chapter of any national/international organization. We take pride in our uniqueness. While we are currently working with international/national organizations and would not mind working with more in the future, we make sure that we are not jumping too quickly into something we would regret. There are, of course, agreements stated by these organizations, which we abide by, such as taking photos of when we use their materials. That, we do not mind because it is entirely understandable and not invasive. The Leadership Institute assured us that we would be able to maintain our independence. Nevertheless, because of what the organization stands for, I would always be wary of them.

The person told me that he/she would be heading around our area soon, and if we would like help tabling, which I agreed to. He/she brought posters to make signs with, went around Red Square to help gather signatures, and gave tips. I was told to call someone within Leadership Institute to learn more about it, and to give the necessary information so we could become a "chapter." (The reason I contacted this person was because the other who referred me would be leaving soon.)

Not too long after that day, I learned there would be a "boot camp" in another state - I forget which one. I would have gone (and dragged some club members with me), but there was a Students for Liberty Regional Conference in Seattle that same weekend. Time, travel costs, and the fact that SFL is actually geared more towards libertarians all contributed to our attending this instead. Afterwards, I became too busy to follow up on whether or not the Western Libertarians became officially-affiliated with the Leadership Institute, but it was always on the back of my mind (and somewhere on my "to-do" list).

Fall turns to winter, winter turns to spring. On April 15, 2014 Campus Reform published an article about President Bruce Shepard and his blog, fueling a notion that WWU was somehow racist against white people. 'Twas then I noticed that an obscene amount of shit turbulently collided with the brisk and unforgiving fan.

Do all of us a favor and actually read what Bruce Shepard wrote.

I noticed this because my WWU Facebook friends were posting the link to this article, saying that the "reporter" did not know what she was talking about. I was curious, clicked it, read it, read the comments (why did I think that was a good idea??)...and wanted to die right then and there.

Soon enough, Daily Caller published an article on how WWU wants to weed out white people.

Hopefully, you know that what Bruce Shepard was really talking about was demographics - if more people of color are coming in to the US and WA, WWU is going to have to have an accurate portrayal of attendees consistent with those numbers. That's all. Simple.

This has nothing to do with affirmative action. If it did, I would have been less inclined to defend my school and our president.

My friend wrote up this excellent piece on the matter.

In response to the national recognition we gained, students rallied behind Bruce Shepard. (As if we did not already have enough attention from the "riot.") One project entitled "I, Too, Am WWU - We Are Diversity" launched on Facebook and Tumblr, documenting views on themselves and diversity, which The Western Front covered.

The Western Front also published this, this, this, this, and this...and I would not be surprised if I was missing any.

One day, these people appeared.

This timing of this was quite coincidental for me. A few days before all of this, I read an article that said that in a few decades, the majority of Americans will be multiracial, which made me happy because I am multiracial and it would show that more people are willing to set aside skin color differences and make families with each other. A friend reposted it, and one of his friends was mad and said something along the lines of it being white genocide.

First off, the correct term would ethnocide - the eradication of a group of people's culture.

While the comment did infuriate me, it did me get me thinking about unintentional ethnocide - is it really ethnocide? Is conforming to a country's standards and practices a form of ethnocide, whether or not it is required by law?

The White Genocide Project is quite scary. It is fairly obvious that these people are masking their racism. Even if they were somehow not racist, their "logic" and "intellectual reasoning" make no sense to me.

On April 28th, a "Diversity Rally" was held - march and the actual rally with speakers, covered by The Western Front.

This is where I personally noticed when some normal, rational WWU students thought the school was taking this too far. "Circlejerk" was a term applied to the "We Are Diversity" response, and I will not deny I was feeling this way too. It was a bit overkill for me. Then again, I guess it could be a personal issue because of the isolation I feel with quite some people at the school not accepting that I am multiracial and bisexual because I look "white" and "straight." (It makes me wonder, how is it that someone can tell someone's sexual orientation or even ethnicity for that matter by just looking at them?)

"I just know this girl is white and straight, okay? DON'T QUESTION ME!!"

Now you may be wondering...what does all of this have to do with the Leadership Institute?

For those of you who do not know, Campus Reform is a subdivision of the Leadership Institute.

When I first found this out, I was embarrassed and infuriated. A friend of a Facebook friend was commenting on something I posted, did his research, and relayed his findings. From there, I took things personally, and felt it was my duty to talk with Campus Reform/Leadership Institute.

From the amount of times and the way I talk about the Western Libertarians, I would think you, as a first-time reader of my blog or as a regular, know how much I dearly love the club and will do anything to make it even better every year. By even thinking of former association with the Leadership Institute, I cannot fully express my embarrassment, both personally and for the club.

Another person from the Leadership Institute/Campus Reform came to campus to film what students had to say about Bruce Shepard's diversity comment. I saw this person a couple of times, but I did not know what he/she was doing because if I had...oh boy.

I received a Facebook message from him/her telling me that he/she was on campus and had a list of students who would be willing to become involved with the Western Libertarians. I told him/her that I was not interested in that list, and wanted to talk with someone higher up in the organization. The reason I would not accept the list is because there was no telling how this person got people interested in the club, especially with what he/she was doing while on campus. For all I know, they could be a bunch of racists.

I tried calling this person quite a few times. First time, they were closed because it was Good Friday - I could not help but roll my eyes at how conservative they were. (While I did grow up Catholic and am highly-respective of the religion, it was the absurdity of how stereotypically-conservative it was of them that amused me.) Finally, I got a voicemail from the person I was trying to reach. Due to the combination of being incredibly furious and my phone being somewhat broken, I never got back to him/her.

Throughout this, it made me mad to this that this organization with potential greatness (for the conservative community) had to resort to immature and unprofessional means of getting attention. We, the Western Libertarians, and I would hope all libertarians in general, understand the importance of integrity and seeking knowledge from a variety of sources. We encourage our members to attend political learning opportunities of all kinds because how can one understand libertarianism and shape your own views without knowing others? To get people interested in our philosophy, we do not have, or feel the need, to resort to desperate measures. If an organization like the Leadership Institute has not and/or cannot accept that line of thinking, what was the point of trying to have a mature conversation with them?

A couple of months later, a friend told me that he saw a cameraperson filming someone (possibly the same one from Campus Reform?) badmouthing Bruce Shepard. Then the person said something along the lines of, "They probably want someone who looks more like her," and pointed to one of the candidate's poster from the AS Elections. Such class. Wow.

What are my opinions on what Bruce Shepard had to say? I agree that the school should reflect the demographics of the state, without  having to resort to controversial measures to do so. Even talking with those who agree with this, they have criticized him for his choice of words. I am pretty indifferent to that. Out of context, yes, that sounds terrible, and can (and has) been easily taken advantage of. However, I also get the point that it was worded that way spark up discussion and debate. I, and a lot of others, found it funny that Campus Reform wrote the article months after the blog post (and years after his first mentioning of it).

It really is a shame that the Leadership Institute feels a need to do what they did. From what I see, they provide great activism training and online resources to groups and individuals who are in need of it. They have the potential to be respected by a number of people from different backgrounds, but only if they could play nicely.

The only way the Western Libertarians and I would work with the Leadership Institute and speak nicely of them is if:

1) They apologized for the demeaning and misleading media published on their site about WWU and Bruce Shepard.

2) They vowed to be honest and did not resort to disingenuous tactics in order promote their organization and to further their own cause, and stayed true to their words.

But what are the chances of that happening?

I really feel like I need to apologize for what they did to WWU. Somehow, I feel like if I kept better track of what they were up to, I could have prevented it from happening.

To wrap this all up, another friend of mine pointed out that if the Leadership Institute wanted to publish something about WWU that was candid and questionable, they would have been better-off publicizing the controversial WWU party bus.

Despite popular belief, you didn't hear that whole "party bus thing" from me.