VOL. 119, Issue 3 - Sept. 23, 2021

02
THURSDAY
SEPT. 23,
2021
STAFF
SUBMISSION POLICY
The San Francisco Foghorn is the
official student newspaper of the
University of San Francisco and is
sponsored by the Associated Students
of the University of San Francisco
(ASUSF).
The thoughts and opinions expressed
herein are those of the individual writers
and do not necessarily reflect those
of the Foghorn staff, the administration,
the faculty, staff or the students
of the University of San Francisco.
Contents of each issue are the sole
responsibilities of the editors.
An All-American
Publication
ad maiorem dei
gloriam
The San Francisco Foghorn is free of
charge, one copy per reader. To purchase
additional copies for $1, please
visit our office.
Advertising matter printed herein is
solely for informational purposes.
Such printing is not to be construed
as written or implied sponsorship
or endorsement of such commercial
enterprises or ventures by the San
Francisco Foghorn.
©MMIV-MMV, San Francisco Foghorn.
All rights reserved. No material
SAN FRANCISCO
FOGHORN
Freedom and Fairness
415.422.5444
sffoghorn.com
Editor in Chief
LUCIA VERZOLA
editorinchief@sffoghorn.com
News Editor
MIGUEL ARCAYENA
news@sffoghorn.com
Opinion Editor
CLARA SNOYER
opinion@sffoghorn.com
Scene Editor
CALLIE FAUSEY
scene@sffoghorn.com
Sports Editor
MAGGIE ALDRICH
sports@sffoghorn.com
Photography Editor
BEAU TATTERSALL
photo@sffoghorn.com
General Reporter
ANNIKA DAHLBERG
reporter1@sffoghorn.com
General Reporter
ZOE BINDER
reporter2@sffoghorn.com
Managing Editor
JAMES SALAZAR
managing@sffoghorn.com
Copy Editor
NORA WARD
copy@sffoghorn.com
Layout Editor
DOMINIQUE CADENAS CALVO
layout@sffoghorn.com
Layout Editor
LOUISE DE OLIVEIRA
layout2@sffoghorn.com
Social Media Manager
SAMANTHA BERLANGA
socialmedia@sffoghorn.com
Online Editor
CLAIRE JACOBS
online@sffoghorn.com
Advisor
TERESA MOORE
2130 FULTON STREET, UC #417
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94117
printed herein may be reproduced
without prior permission of the Editor
in Chief.
Columns for the Opinion section
and Letters to the Editor are gladly
accepted from students, faculty, staff
and alumni.
All materials must be signed and
include your printed name, university
status (class standing or title), address,
and telephone number for verification.
Anonymous submissions are not
published.
We reserve the right to edit materials
submitted. All submissions become the
property of the San Francisco Foghorn.
Columns of not more than 900 words
should be submitted by 5 p.m. on the
Wednesday before publication.
Letters of 500 words or less should
be submitted by 5 p.m. on the Friday
before publication.
Staff editorials are written by the
Foghorn editorial staff and represent a
group consensus.
The San Francisco Foghorn Opinion
page is a forum for the free, fair and
civil exchange of ideas. Contributors’
opinions are not meant to reflect
the views of the Foghorn staff or the
University of San Francisco.
STAFF EDITORIAL:
RECALL ELECTION AMOUNTS
TO NOTHING
GRAPHIC BY CLARA SNOYER/SAN FRANCISCO FOGHORN
Though it was a foregone conclusion that
he would keep his seat in office, the recent gubernatorial
recall election of Gov. Gavin Newson
was pointless for multiple reasons. The
state wasted taxpayer dollars on an attempted
power grab, but unlike the last recall election
in 2003, which successfully ousted incumbent
Gov. Gray Davis, Republicans were unable
to turn California red. Additionally, the recall
election encapsulated the current state of
American politics as our penchant for culture
wars allowed political figures like Larry Elder
to step onto the scene and sow Trump-like
seeds of political discontent.
While he no longer holds office, the
ways in which Donald Trump overhauled the
Republican party are still being felt in state
politics. Since Trump lost his presidency, the
GOP has played into the idea of rigged elections,
a sentiment that undermines the democratic
process which is supposed to set this
country apart from every other nation in the
world. In other words, elections only count
when the GOP gets its way. Even before the
2020 presidential election votes were certified,
Trump planted mistrust among his supporters
by spewing unfounded claims of a rigged election.
Candidates such as Republican frontrunner
Elder tried emulating these tactics. Long
before the recall, Elder came prepared with
a team of lawyers and a voter fraud website
that would supposedly prove that Democrats
were continuing to steal elections. Regardless
of their political affiliation, party members
cannot cry foul when their candidate does not
win.
The recall election takes on another level
of absurdity when accounting for the approximate
$300 million California spent on the
recall election, an amount reported by the Los
Angeles Times. This money could have been
distributed back to communities that suffer
from lack of housing, little access to healthcare,
and jobs that do not pay enough, especially
as the COVID-19 pandemic continues
ravaging the lower class.
Some Californians tried to justify recalling
Newsom by pointing to his own inactions
toward the pandemic — he had been reckless
in his personal decision of evading his own
state public orders and spent a lavish night
with wealthy donors as opposed to implementing
real action that would exacerbate the
spread of the virus in California. However, Republicans
cannot claim that our current leader
is not doing anything to contain the virus
when their platform routinely downplays the
effects of the pandemic.
To make sure an election like this never
happens again, Californians have to show
up for themselves and, more importantly, for
each other. The thought of California turning
red seems far-fetched, but the state was not always
a democratic safe haven. To keep California
blue, we must vote with the urgency that
all of this could be taken away at any moment.
It is not enough to count on others to do work
for us, especially when they often come from
already disenfranchised communities.
Secondly, the state itself needs to examine
its political practices. While California was
one of the earliest states to modernize government
by establishing the recall election, we
now see it is far too easy to go through the
process and instigate a recall. 19 states allow
recall elections and specific grounds for recall
are required in eight of these states. California
needs to adopt a more concrete plan for what
is grounds for recall as failure to do so will lead
to an abuse of the system. This is why California
voters must not become complacent but
stay in tune with the ways in which they can
change or sustain the systems that govern us.
MIGUEL ARCAYENA
Staff Writer
WHERE TO PLUG? THE SEARCH FOR
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS
According to the Department of Public Safety, there are currently a total
of 814 parking spaces available for the USF community to use on campus,
including the recently added 83 stalls under the new Lone Mountain East
dorms. Unfortunately, electric vehicle (EV) owners will only find three accessible
spaces with charging stations, and these are limited to only a select number
of faculty members.
“Why don’t we have more chargers? There’s clearly demand for them,”
said politics Professor Stephen Zunes. He drives a Chevrolet Volt Plug-In Hybrid
and often commutes from Santa Cruz. When he is unable to charge his
vehicle, Zunes must use gas to drive back home. Though a personal inconvenience,
Zunes says the lack of options to charge his vehicle outlines a bigger
issue of limited EV accommodations offered by the University.
David Philpott, assistant vice president for labor and employee relations,
handles the unofficial EV charging station program for USF. He wrote in an
email that there is actually “no formal policy” in regards to EV charging stations.
“The University established an Electric Vehicle charging station pilot program
in 2017. The first 25 faculty members and staff who signed up were
granted an opportunity to participate. A waitlist was established for other faculty
and staff members who expressed interest in the program,” wrote Philpott.
Since its introduction four years ago, the program has not expanded.
Zunes remains confused as to why station access is still limited to the
same 25 faculty members who signed up in 2017. “The bigger issue for me is
I never see all three spaces full,” said Zunes. “Why not expand it? Why not
have other people use it as well, given that they’re available most of the time?”
Philpott said USF does want to increase accessibility, but the issue has
been tied to recent University financial struggles. According to some estimates,
the current EVlink Charging Station that is used by the University costs from
$2,000-7,000. However, Philpott said “The University has always planned on
expanding the program. The University has applied for several grants to help
fund the expansion, and the budget cuts have prevented internal funding of
the project.”
Though only a few students commute with electric vehicles, some have
still expressed concern over the lack of charging stations on campus. When
transfer student Trevor Gross inquired about using the stations this summer,
he said it was made clear to him that students couldn’t have access and that the
University was working on expanding the program.
Similar to Zunes, Gross observed that the spaces were not often used. “If
there aren’t any faculty using them, I don’t see why they should be sitting there
collecting dust when students can take advantage of it,” said Gross.
Senior nursing student Danielle Hong, who drives a Tesla, agreed that
an expansion on charging stations would provide some relief for students.
Although she understands that it is limited to faculty use, Hong says what
interests her is the University’s discreet way of acknowledging its EV charging
stations. “I feel that there isn’t enough being done to even publicize the availability
of charging stations on campus.”
The issue of charging stations has also become a faculty bargaining issue,
given that its policy is led by a member of the University’s labor negotiating
team. Public Safety, which normally oversees campus parking operations, does
not handle this issue, nor does the Office of Sustainability, which leads the
University’s green and eco-friendly initiatives.
When asked why this issue is under the University’s general counsel’s responsibility,
Philpott clarified that “Labor Relations, which is under the Office
of the General Counsel, was part of the initial rollout and was asked to help
facilitate the communication regarding the program.”
According to Philpott, “In 2016, the topic of EV charging stations was
raised during bargaining with the USFFA.” Subsequently, the pilot program
was then introduced to faculty members in April 2017.
Since then, it has evolved into an issue of expansion. Karen Sawislak, general
counsel for the USF Full-Time Faculty Association (USFFA) said, “We are
hopeful that resources will be identified very soon to create new facilities and
that the University will look at creative solutions and partnerships to carry out
this important project. Most immediately, we are talking with the University
about opening up the existing program to more of our members.”
According to the USF’s Climate Action Plan, the University has a “moral
imperative to act now on climate change” and is currently working towards
a commitment to carbon neutrality by 2050. Though “driving less” and “reducing
carbon emissions” are some of the key strategies to complete the goal,
Philpott said that the University “has made numerous strides and continues to
implement various initiatives to reduce our carbon footprint.”
With only two charging stations that serve three vehicles, Zunes said,
“With our supposed commitment to reducing carbon emissions, we’re making
it difficult for something that would be so straightforward.”
Given that only a handful of faculty members and students drive electric vehicles, many of them are wondering how often these chargers at the lower level of the Koret Health and Recreation Center
parking lot are used. PHOTO BY MIGUEL ARCAYENA/SAN FRANCISCO FOGHORN
03
NEWS