issue 19 final

02 03
THURSDAY
APR. 18
2024
SAN FRANCISCO
FOGHORN
Freedom and Fairness
STAFF EDITORIAL
CONTINUED FROM FRONT PAGE
STAFF
Editor in Chief
MEGAN ROBERTSON
mrrobertson2@dons.usfca.edu
News Editor
NIKI SEDAGHAT
nisedaghat@dons.usfca.edu
Opinion Editor
CHISOM OKORAFOR
cokorafor@dons.usfca.edu
Scene Editor
INÉS VENTURA
ipventura@dons.usfca.edu
Sports Editor
CHASE DARDEN
cbdarden@dons.usfca.edu
Photography Editor
SAMANTHA AVILA GRIFFIN
svavilagriffin@dons.usfca.edu
General Reporter
PHEBE BRIDGES
pjbridges@dons.usfca.edu
General Reporter
ELINA GRAHAM
emgraham@dons.usfca.edu
415.422.5444
sffoghorn.com
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.
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 printed herein may be reproduced
without prior permission
of the Editor in Chief.
Managing Editor
JORDAN PREMMER
jepremmer@dons.usfca.edu
Copy Editor
SOPHIA SIEGEL
scsiegel@dons.usfca.edu
Layout Editor
ANYA JORDAN
arjordan@dons.usfca.edu
Layout Editor
HALLEY COMPUTESTO
hmcompuesto@dons.usfca.edu
Social Media Manager
MARIA ZAIED
mfzaied@dons.usfca.edu
Online Editor
ESHA DUPUGUNTLA
ekdupuguntla@dons.usfca.edu
ADVISOR
TERESA MOORE
2130 FULTON STREET, UC #417
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94117
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.
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.
Students interested in contributing
to the Foghorn can scan and fill out
the QR code below.
ECO-CIDE: HOW WAR WEAPONIZES THE ENVIRONMENT
The environment has become
a casualty of war. International law
needs to catch up to this reality and
address it.
According to the World Economic
Forum, ecocide means “unlawful or
wanton acts committed with knowledge
that there is a substantial likelihood
of severe and either widespread
or long-term damage to the environment
being caused by those acts.” For
example, companies dumping pollutants
in waterways or cutting down
entire forests would qualify.
Though the word is relatively
new, a handful of countries already
consider it a crime. The Foghorn believes
a more specific crime must be
articulated: the crime of intentional
and malicious destruction of land to
render it uninhabitable for the population.
In this way, the environment
is leveraged as a weapon of warfare.
For example, in Dec. 2023, the Israeli
Defense Forces announced that
they began pumping seawater into
the tunnels under the Gaza strip. Beyond
being a danger to any humans in
those tunnels - such as Israelis being
held by Hamas - an article by Scientific
American details the potential
environmental devastation of such an
act. The seawater could contaminate
the aquifer underneath Gaza, which
the strip’s millions of residents rely
for drinking, agriculture, and sanitization.
United Nations (UN) experts
warned the action could render the
land uninhabitable. Furthermore,
though Israeli officials claimed the
move was to destroy Hamas’ militant
capabilities, many argue the move
is just another effort to ethnically
cleanse Palestinians in Gaza from the
land. If true, pumping seawater into
Gaza’s grounds could be a violation of
the UN’s Genocide Convention.
A Human Rights Watch investigation
in Oct. 2023 found that Israel
also dropped white phosphorus on
Gaza and parts of southern Lebanon
— particularly agricultural areas.
White phosphorus is an extremely incendiary
chemical that ignites upon
making contact with oxygen. When
deployed, it is devastating to humans
and nature alike. In Lebanon, white
phosphorus scorched olive and citrus
orchards to the ground and possibly
have left the targeted land unusable
for agriculture for years. This move
violates the right of Lebanese people
to an environment that can sustain
them. Israel’s use of the chemical
weapon has been decried as illegal
under international norms.
However, Israel is not the first
country to weaponize the environment
against their adversaries. There
is a long history of forcing indigenous
people off their lands via environmental
destruction.
In the 19th century, the United
States carried out a massacre of
bison. This slaughter irreparably
changed the landscape of the Great
Plains east of the Rocky Mountains.
Furthermore, South Dakota State
University found that these killings
were organized as a military strategy
in the colonial project against the
indigenous people to make their land
uninhabitable.
The environment was weaponized
during the Civil War, with General
William Sherman’s scorchedearth
March to the Sea. It pops up in
Vietnam, when U.S. troops deployed
Agent Orange against rice farmland.
The war crime of environmental
destruction exists — we’ve seen
it committed. Even so, international
law hasn’t caught on. Though these
acts clearly meet the conditions for
Genocide under the Convention,
which make it illegal to “Deliberately
inflict… on the group conditions of
life calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part,”
we haven’t seen world leaders willing
to vocalize this crime.
Until we have the specific terminology
to refer to the intentional weaponizing
of the environment against
its inhabitants, we are doomed to
watch this crime be perpetrated over
and over again.
CORRECTIONS BOX
In our Apr. 11 article, “USF Discontinues Tennis Programs,” we stated
that the email announcing the program’s termination was sent to USF
community members on Apr. 9. It was sent on Apr. 5.
earth month spotlight
BREAKING DOWN THE BUDGET
revenue comes from tuition, a statistic which is
provided by UBAC in their presentation, hyperlinked
in the online edition of this article. Making
up the rest of the budget, 8% is from auxiliary
revenue, 2.2% is meal plan revenue, 1.2% is investment
returns, .7% revenue is from fees, .5% is other
revenue, and .3% is from gifts and contributions.
“Auxiliary revenue includes things like room and
board, as well as Koret,” specified Sholes. Also
noted is the approximate $50 million received as
restricted gifts, wherein the donors require their
donations to go to a specific cause. Most frequently,
this money goes towards scholarships and endowments.
The total revenue for the 2024 fiscal
year is $519.8 million.
Nkemere said, “Almost 100% of our school’s
revenue is spent with the exception of about 3% in
savings reserves.” According to the presentation,
USF has $519.8 million in total expenses for this
2024 fiscal year.
27% of the revenue is spent on academic affairs.
“This is to pay salary for staff for those specific
colleges themselves,” said Nkemere.
courtesy of UBAC.
35.8% of this revenue is spent on “other academic
affairs.” “The other category is basically
classified by all the money that’s spent that’s not directly in the academic
schools themselves,” said Nkemere. “So, something that would
be encompassed in this portion itself would be about $135 million in
scholarships paid to students for this fiscal year.”
Additionally, according to the presentation, 15.1% of the operating
expenses goes to business and finances, 6.8% goes to student life,
4.9% goes to ITS, 3.7% goes to athletics, 2.7% goes to institutional
support, 2% goes toward development, 1% goes to the Office of Marketing
Communications, .6% goes to general council, and .3% goes to
the President.
The percentages provided for both the revenue and expenses respectively
add up to 99.9%.
Pictured above are the University’s 2024 expenses, which is all the money slated to be spent this fiscal year.
Graphic courtesy of UBAC.
Pictured above are the University’s 2024 revenue, which is all the money collected this fiscal year. Graphic
After the presentation was complete, the ASUSF Senate opened
the floor for student questions, which were answered by members of
the senate, alongside some administrative members of UBAC and faculty
members.
Students and community members asked questions pertaining to
the budget and financial plans for the university. Some students, however,
found the answers to be somewhat underwhelming.
“I think [the faculty members] answered the questions, but… they
didn’t give any hard answers, and they didn’t really make any concrete
assurances to the audience,” said Getchell. “But, walking out, I did
feel much more confident in our school’s organization…It probably
lowered my anxiety a little bit about raising tuition.”
For the 2024-2025 school year, USF announced that tuition will
be raised by 3.9%, or $2,250 according to the presentation.
In regards to tuition increases, Sholes
said,“UBAC does not have any final decision [on
tuition increases]. When [UBAC members vote],
their votes are recommendations that then go to
the higher ups… and that’s when the final decision
is made.”
After the town hall, Sholes told the Foghorn,
“it was definitely nerve wracking leading up to [the
town hall] because we both wanted to do a good
job. It’s a bit of a difficult situation… we’re students
but we also play a role in UBAC. I think overall it
went well, I think a lot of the questions were really
great and very thoughtful.”
She continued, saying “I was really happy with
how open everything was. There’s just, overall,
hope that this is something that can continue every
year, which I think is really positive.”
Editor-in-Chief: Megan Robertson, Chief Copy
Editor: Sophia Siegel, Managing Editor: Jordan
Premmer, News Editor: Niki Sedaghat
NEWS