Issue 86.9 by On Dit

ISSUE 86.9

Upcoming Issue Contribution Due Dates Final Issue: 16th September Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d love to hear your ideas! Email us at onditmag@gmail.com

– On Dit –

ON DIT CONTENTS Editorial Letter to the Editors State of Union SRC President What’s On Vox Pop Left, Right, & Centre Econ Dit Iso-Topic

3 4 6 7 8 10 12 14 16

EDITORS Aiden Bedford Ethan Penglase

ARTICLES STUPOL Bingo For a radical union Mental Spectacle Disasterchef Australia: Culinary Politics Artist Feature: ANGVS The Silent Killer: Political Apathy Is Arts Easier? Spaces and Places in Academia Ecoversity, more like ecotoryism [Trans]gressions Twen..teen? Welcome to the Muskalypse Trump and Iran: It's all about the bottom line

19 20 23 24 26 38 40 42 44 48 50 54 56

COVER ART "Tertiary Trauma" By Angus Smith @angvs

ARTWORK "Wired" by Emily Savage

CENTREFOLD By Anzelle de Kock

SUBEDITORS Austin Frape Dylan Rowen Hilary D'Angelo DESIGNERS Anzelle de Kock Jennafer Milne

On Dit is produced on the land of the Kaurna people. We acknowledge them as the traditional owners and custodians of the Adelaide Plains. Their land was stolen, never ceded. It always was and always will be Aboriginal land.

– On Dit –

EDITORIAL

On 15 August 1939, the USSR offered to send no less than one million troops to the German border had Britain and France agreed to enter into an anti-Nazi pact. Britain and France refused, and by September World War Two had broken out. It’s unclear why Britain and France refused to contain the German menace and potentially avert humanity’s worst catastrophe. Maybe they doubted the feasibility of the plan, perhaps they actually wanted a war or rather they could have simply been “apolitical”. It’s a word that gets passed around a lot in the Board Room of the Adelaide University Union. It’s a word used by those who want to cripple the functions of the Union beyond imagination, to render it a body that does little more than serve mediocre lunches every other Friday. The proponents of the Apolitical Union argue that broader campaigns around student poverty, government spending priorities, social rights issues and the like are insignificant to the Union. Such matters are, of course, solely within the purview of the underfunded and understaffed Student Representative Council. How convenient. But calls for the Union to be apolitical aren’t strictly demanded by the careerist resume-stackers. No, the

fiery and opinionated members of the Liberal and Labor parties aren’t above invoking apoliticism in order to avoid difficult conversations. Why actually engage with your opponents’ arguments when you can just claim the matter doesn’t fall within the scope of the Union’s responsibilities? Now, I don’t actually think Britain and France opted to be apolitical – the complexities of World War Two can’t be reduced to the decisions of a handful of Great Men anyway. But you get the point of my haphazard analogy: The politics of indifference can be dangerous. Imagine if the millions of students around the world who campaigned against the Vietnam War didn’t and instead opted to be apolitical. Imagine if students didn’t voice their opposition to South African apartheid because they didn’t want to rock the boat. It’s a grim vision for student unionism. This student election week make sure you vote for the individuals that will rock the boat, that will vigorously stand up for the rights of students. The proposed merger between UniSA and Adelaide Uni has the potential to be catastrophic for students – we need determined and militant student representatives more than ever. The politics of indifference will no longer suffice. Aiden and Ethan. 3

– On Dit –

DEAR EDITORS

On August 6, Felix Eldridge wrote about the potential union of this university with UniSA (“The University Merger: Averting a Consolidation of Damnation”). The article raises important problems,

Felix also raises the issue of staff cuts. The problem, however, isn’t so much whether jobs are cut, or how many, but crucially whose jobs are cut.

but it misses the point in other ways.

In almost all universities in Australia, there are fewer academics than there are bureaucrats. This bureaucracy is self-perpetuating. It has a higher rate of growth than the academic sector.

I’m unconvinced that simple economics is of much help in analysing what is often regrettably called “the market” for degrees. It is suggested that, because a merger would decrease institutional competition, the incentive to maintain the quality of degrees would also decrease. But this assumes that universities have a lot more agency than they do. In my time as a University Councillor I came to see that the Federal funding model is a straightjacket. It leaves universities with funding imbalances that it can solve in only one way: by admitting far too many students. What we get in return are stretched resources and an inadequate education.

We have three public universities. It is not competition, but collaboration, which will determine their longevity. The Federal funding model, and the rise of paper-pushers over paper-writers, entrench the devaluation of education in our academic institutions. All we can hope is that a merger might just give Adelaide the influence needed to combat both those ills. Kyriaco Nikias

Part of a leading crew University of Adelaide merchandise available in-store and online now. Level 4, Union House + The General

theadelaidestore.com.au

â&#x20AC;&#x201C; On Dit â&#x20AC;&#x201C;

STATE OF THE UNION Words by Iacovos Digenis AUU President

Hello! For those of you that might not know, I am the President of the Adelaide University Union. I was elected by my fellow Board Directors in May following the resignation of my predecessor. It was certainly an unexpected thing for me, but I'm pleased to say I am getting on with the job, and look forward to improving the services of our Union while serving the remainder of my term to the best of my abilities. My understanding is this issue of On Dit will be distributed during election week. For first years, this might be a pretty confusing time of the year! For everyone else, it's an annual tradition that you either, love, hate, love to hate, or hate to love. Basically, over the course of the week, campaigners from various teams in different coloured shirts (representing a number of political groups) will vie for your vote. It might be tempting to avoid all of this by changing your route to class, or lying and telling a campaigner you're a UniSA student, but I encourage you to vote. Democracy strikes at the very heart of student unionism. As an organisation, the Adelaide University Union believes that student services should be run for and by students. This is because a student led organisation, run solely in the interest of students, is best placed to provide services and create a vibrant campus culture for students. The only way the Union can remain representative of the student body is by the democratic process.

The people we elect this week will represent us in a number of important organisations. For anyone who doesn't know, I'll explain a little bit about each organisation. The National Union of Students (NUS) is the peak body for students in Australia. Students elected to NUS are your national political voice. The Student Representative Council (SRC) is your political voice on campus. They fight for your interests at University and work in conjunction with NUS to stop attacks on students. My organisation, the Adelaide University Union (AUU) funds, runs and provides events, clubs, student media, advocacy and other services for students. Of course, you can also elect Student Radio Directors and On Dit Editors who influence and contribute to campus culture. Even if you're not as enthusiastic about this as me, there is still one more incentive to vote; the sticker that lets campaigners and student politicians know you've already voted so they can leave you alone. My final message is to be nice to one another this week, look out for your fellow students, and vote!

– On Dit –

SRC PRESIDENT Words by Matthew Boughey

It’s that time again. The dreaded week of student elections is almost here. It’s incredible how quickly it creeps up, isn’t it? I’ll be honest (and I’m not entirely proud of it), I’ve been involved in many student elections and have no doubt harassed you at some point throughout your time here. So, it’s my time to give back. Here are my insider tips for avoiding student politicians: 1) Perfect the skill of automatically avoiding eye contact with anyone with a multicoloured shirt. 2) Invest in a pair of noise cancelling headphones. If you ignore them because you can’t hear them, it is really being rude? 3) Dark tinted sunglasses. A seriously underrated deterrence. In all seriousness, my greatest (and perhaps most radical) tip for avoiding student politicians is to just vote. You get a nice sticker that you can put on the back of your phone and wave it at anyone who approaches you. Trust me, we do back off!

We’re entering a period of uncertainty at our University. Right now, the University is considering the merger and are talking about completely redesigning the curriculum. The major issues that face the student body don’t stop there. The Government is hell-bent on cutting funding to the higher education sector and forcing students to repay their HECS debt at a lower amount. We’ve also seen the shocking uncovering of sexual misconduct at residential colleges here in South Australia that has been swept under the rug for years. In the face of all of these issues, we need strong student leadership. We need student leaders who will fight for positive outcomes for all and who are not afraid to stand up for what’s right. For that to happen, I ask of you one simple thing – vote in the student elections. I’m not going to tell you who to vote for. I only ask that you read the policies and promises of each team. Do your research. Make an informed choice. There is too much at stake to be disinterested or apathetic.

However, most importantly, by taking those few minutes out of your day, you’re engaging in the democratic process that decides who represents YOU while you’re at University. I can’t stress how important this is.

– On Dit –

ADELAIDE FASHION FESTIVAL 17th - 21st October Torrens Parade Ground In its 11th year, AFF will feature an expanded showcase of South Australian ready-to-wear designers, a bridal-focused couture runway, an ethical sustainable fashion presentation, and TAFE SA designs, as well as many returning favourites of the South Australian fashion industry.

STAR WARS: A NEW HOPE IN CONCERT 15th September @ 19:00 Adelaide Entertainment Centre Luke Skywalker begins a journey that will change the galaxy, as he leaves his home planet, battles the evil Empire and learns the ways of the Force. Don’t miss the Adelaide Premiere of A New Hope in concert, with the Adelaide Symphony Orchestra performing John Williams’s Oscar winning score live to the complete film.

GT X ABSS BUSINESS BALL 2018 7th September @ 19:00 Hilton Hotel, Victoria Square The Adelaide Business Students' Society is proud to present our annual business ball – GREEK ODYSSEY. This year, our ball will be held at the Hilton Adelaide. We hope you're all ready for the biggest event of the year for all business students, suit up and get your makeup appointments in. We're not talking togas – but gods, goddesses, wine, gold and more.

– On Dit –

RE-ELECT BEAU TO SALISBURY COUNCIL 22nd October @ 07:00 West Ward Lol!!

2018 VEGAN FESTIVAL ADELAIDE 27th-28th October @ 10:00 Victoria Square For just $5 come learn about the wide and wonderful world of veganism!

SPRING AFFAIR AT THE LION 30th September @ 19:30 The Lion Hotel Join the Lion for a warm frolic through the McLaren Vale! Start off with delectable continental breakfast at the hotel, then a road trip to the McLaren Vale to 3 award-winning wineries (Paxton, Coriole and Maxwell) for drinks, dance and good times. Upon return to the hotel enjoy your complimentary drink coming with your ticket and kick on to the afterparty!

– On Dit –

Vox Pop Where we ask students the important questions.

Laura

Sophie

Law/International Studies

Law/Media

1. Oh, I mean, pretty important. I run in them.

1. Kind of important. I’ve only ever voted once, and this is my fourth year.

2. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.

2. Girls but I can’t tell you who it’s by. But it was really good.

3. Pass Admin Law. 4. I think it was a very poor choice of words. An apology admittedly isn’t going to do anything, but I don’t think it would hurt. 5. It’s hell Scandy. I just care about more seats in the library, I don’t give a shit how it looks.

3. Because it’s my last semester in Media, boost my GPA. And get a tiny bit more involved in stuff. 4. I think it’s horrible. It’s really rude and he should be sacked. 5. It’s fun. It’s fresh.

– On Dit –

1. How important do you think student elections are? 2. What's the last fiction novel you read? 3. What are your goals for this semester? 4. Do you think Senator Anning should have to apologise for referencing the Final Solution in Parliament? 5. What is your opinion on the new library renovation?

Benjamin

Nix

Software Engineering

Arts (Advanced)

1. It’s as important as voting in local elections.

1. I think they’re a very important part of campus activity and campus life.

2. A book in the A Song of Ice and Fire series. The third one.

2. Rapture by Carol Ann Duffy. 3. Get through it. Do the best I can.

3. Devote my time equally to University and my life. Say that I’ve studied hard.

4. Yeah, I think he should resign. It’s pretty appalling.

4. I don’t know what that incident is. 5. Seems interesting and useful. Quite luxurious.

5. Mixed feelings. It’s nice but maybe a bit too clinical, maybe not enough study space.

– On Dit –

LEFT, RIGHT, & CENTRE LEFT

CENTRE

ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY LABOR LEFT

ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY LABOR CLUB

TAMSIN ANSPACH

1. A mandatory trimester system is bad for students. This system would mean students would have less time to study for exams, less holiday periods and a more intense study period. Students from rural backgrounds, international students, mature age students and students that rely on holiday periods to work would suffer under the trimester system and face further barriers when completing their University degrees. The current system in which intensive winter and summer school is optional allows students flexibility when completing their degrees but does not force them to overload themselves. The University already uses trimesters as academic terms for a small amount of postgraduate courses. 2. Stating that there is rape culture present in an institution is not a personal attack as rape culture exists in all spaces. Institutions should recognise where there are problems and work constructively with students to create safe 12

MATTHEW BOUGHEY

environments for study and living. Students can’t concentrate on their study when they feel unsafe where they live. We would like to see student leadership listen to the survivors that have come through their institution and understand that a million positive experiences don’t cancel out even one experience of abuse. 3. The Make Education Free Again Campaign is one of the most important campaigns that the National Union of Students has and will run. It is a broad and pro-active campaign aimed at shifting the conversation around higher education. The fight for free education benefits not only students but the population as a whole – it addresses all concerns around the nature of corporate universities and shameful government priorities.

1. Put simply, trimesters are bad. Bad for students and bad for staff. Trimesters are a way for the University to get students in, complete their studies in a shorter space of time, and get them out. The University loves it because it would allow them to collect fees from students three times a year instead of two! Under the new trimester system at Curtin University, students have lost two weeks out of each semester. This means students have less time to complete assignments, work part time and enjoy the student experience. Kiss goodbye to those sweet summer holidays also. You’ll be studying over Christmas and New Years. The most terrifying thing of all – it is entirely plausible, under a trimester system, you could finish your classes on Friday and have two exams the following Monday.

– On Dit –

1. The idea to move to a trimester system has been floated in merger talks. Do you think this will be good or bad for students?

2. What actions would you like to see the St Mark’s student leadership take in regards to the alleged rape culture at the College?

3. Do you expect the National Union of Students’ “Books Not Bombs” campaign to get more traction than the Make Education Free Again campaign?

RIGHT

ANGUS HEATON ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY LIBERAL CLUB 2. Resign! Please, just resign from your posts. It’s extremely problematic for members of St Mark’s student leadership to come out and say rape culture doesn’t exist at their College. What about the three survivors who bravely came forward and spoke of their time at the College marred with sexual misconduct, rape and hazing? If that’s not indicative of a rape culture, I’m not sure what is.

1. I don't think trimesters are at all beneficial to students and I hope they aren't part of any potential merger deal. Trimesters would mean we get far less holidays throughout the year, and less time for SWOTVAC. Many students get summer casual jobs but this would no longer be feasible if we were studying over the Christmas period. They're bad for mature age students as there would be less holiday alignment with school holidays.

Let’s be real, where else in our society would leaders of an institution get away with disregarding the experience of survivors and blatantly denying there’s a problem when there’s firm evidence to the contrary? It is a sign of poor leadership and honestly, your positions are untenable.

There are also the issues of no guarantee that courses will be run every trimester, and insufficient time to sit replacement exams before the next trimester starts.

3. I expect the Books Not Bombs campaign to gain more traction based purely on the fact it has the potential to upset a lot of people at this University and campuses across Australia.

2. From what I understand, St Marks student leadership has taken some positive steps to ensure the College is a safe place after the recent allegations came out, including compulsory workshops around sexual violence and mental health. They ought to continue this work and promote a

culture of respect and consent at the College, as well as supporting any students who come forward as victims of sexual assault. 3. At a recent SRC meeting I asked a supporter of the campaign whether they thought the Australian Defence Force was in any way useful to Australian society, and received a firm "no" in reply. The idea that Australia should no longer have any military or capability to defend itself is such a fringe far left position and I think the majority of students see this campaign for how ridiculous it is. Companies like BAE and ASC provide significant employment to South Australians, and a range of graduate opportunities to Adelaide Uni students from a number of faculties - in particular engineering. I sincerely hope this campaign doesn't gain much traction, and I'm confident that will be the case.

– On Dit –

Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Development Words by Aiden Bedford and Rui Sihombing

The transfer of ideas and technology throughout all of human history has been a critical factor in the collective advancement of humanity. All innovations, from the wheel, to the stirrup, to the furrow plough, were shared amongst all who came into contact with these simple mechanical marvels. Take a hypothetical scenario in which people from the past could see into the future. Witnessing the discussion around intellectual property rights (IPRs) it is almost certain that the notion that someone could own an idea would be a distinctly foreign one. Yet that is not the case today. Not only is it accepted as a given amongst most ordinary people that intellectual property rights are necessarily good, it has come to to be a central axiom within the field of development economics. Mainstream economists argue that IPRs are crucial for the process of development to occur. Without them, the necessary incentive structures to develop new technologies, innovate, and accumulate sophisticated labour-saving capital will be diminished. Without such an institutional framework, these impoverished nations will remain as such, in perpetuity. This line of 14

rhetoric is best surmised by the US-based National Law Center for Inter-American Free Trade who stated that, “the historical record in the industrialized countries, which began as developing countries, demonstrates that intellectual property protection has been one of the most powerful instruments for economic development, export growth, and the diffusion of new technologies, art and culture”. (Just as a note for later: the United States itself had patent laws which allowed patents to be granted without any proof of originality till 1836.) The first nation to industrialise was Britain and consequently there is much debate as to why it happened there. Was it a labour shortage? Good institutions and strict property rights? Possibly. No one knows for certain. Yet what is a certainty is that the basis for the industrialisation of the continental Europe was entirely dependent on technology transfer from Britain. Surprisingly, despite what the National Law Center for Inter-American Free Trade would have you believe, the game of catch-up for those nations who were not so as

– On Dit –

developed as their neighbours on the British Isles was not one that occurred on the basis of formal international intellectual property rights recognition. While some transfers of technology were legitimate, a significant portion of these “transfers” occurred through illegitimate means. State sponsored theft, espionage, explicit disregard for foreign IPRs and lax domestic IP law all constituted the means by which most nations managed to catch up to the British. Another nation which followed the United Kingdom in undergoing industrialisation was the Netherlands. Yet here contrary to this narrative we have been sold we see no evidence of strict system of IP law. They first introduced patent laws in 1817, and then abolished them in 1896. Yet even during this short time, Dutch patent laws were so lax that an individual could patent an imported invention and there was no penalty for using patented products without permission, as long as it was necessary part of running a business. Yet this is not an isolated case. Switzerland, which is today the most industrialised nation on Earth on a per capita basis, did not provide any protection to any form of intellectual property till 1888. Germany, who was allowing the illegal sale of counterfeit Sheffield steel cutlery with fake logos, went on in 1907 to threaten Switzerland with trade sanctions in retaliation to their continued unlicensed

use of German chemical and pharmaceutical inventions. The Swiss took their time however, it would be another 47 years before their patent law resembled the stringency of other advanced countries (although much to the dismay of the Germans - chemical substances remained unpatentable until 1978). It is a curious case, then, that the description of the development process as given to us by the National Law Center for Inter-American Free Trade, bears almost no resemblance to the historical record. So why is this important? Well, the developing nations are still exactly that today: Developing. Not much progress has been made since the 1990s when the signatory nations to the WTO were required to institute strict domestic IP laws, and recognise the IP of foreign nations. We must ask then, regardless of how well intentioned these people may or may not be, based solely on how ill-informed many defenders of the trade-related IPR are in relation to the historical importance of IPRs in promoting economic development, whether a different set of rules are indeed necessary, more desirable and indeed simply just fair. New rules should be drafted and the same allowances be made to these nations in their own game of catch-up. A more lax system to encourage the proliferation of ideas - and maybe some thievery here and there.

– On Dit –

The Linguistics of Science (for people who speak English) Words by Calum McRae

Up until relatively recently, if one were to study academia in the west, they would do so in Latin. It’s not hard to see the problem with the masses not being able to understand the texts dictating how their society should function. In the time of Martin Luther, all bibles were printed in Latin and one of his lasting legacies is his translation of the bible into German. Being able to read the text that sculpted the public’s laws, morals and society was a tremendous step in loosening the Vatican’s

Many concepts in science are extremely complicated. As a result heuristic devices are a tool that is commonly utilised to allow a person to understand or explain a complex concept in shorter and simpler terms. Often familiar and simpler objects and concepts are utilised as a substitute to give the person a rough idea of the true nature of the concept in question. An example that some would be familiar with is the common model of an atom. Highschool chemistry will tell you

influence on the region. We now live in a time where people are increasingly looking to the sciences to build our civil systems and policies. It is therefore important that the public have scientific concepts and discoveries communicated in an accessible fashion. Obviously, no one need learn Latin to educate themselves anymore however, barriers in communication still exist. If someone who has not studied in the field of biology read a new biological publication, they would probably find that they couldn’t understand large sections due to esoteric language. Is this a problem? Should biological publications say "the stage where the cell divides" instead of "the mitotic phase" simply so the public can understand? The answer is likely complicated and subjective, but here, we discuss several points worth considering.

that electrons are particles that orbit a nucleus in different energy bands, superficially resembling a solar system with the sun as the nucleus and planets as electrons. However, a university class in chemistry will very soon tell you that this is not the case and that electrons "orbit" a nucleus in "standing waves" of probability densities. In this case the word "orbit" is probably not even applicable. So why even explain it as the prior? For many situations in chemistry, thinking about an atom as a pseudosolar-system will be enough to predict how atoms will bond and giving an accurate description will only convolute the situation. There are minor, benign situations where this description has led to false extrapolations. A motif exists in many pseudoscientific circles which draws great meaning from

– On Dit –

the similarities between the behaviour of celestial bodies and quantum particles. This train of thought uses the aforementioned "high school" model of an atom, which is not accurate. The use of the word "orbit" likely plays a role in this comparison. Using everyday language to explain complex concepts is a good technique to communicate easily however, doing so can occasionally be misleading. Another example is the observer effect; a theory in science which is often explained as "the act of observing an

The misunderstandings of the observer effect illustrate the point of this essay but probably don’t have a huge negative effect on society, apart from causing people to have pretentious conversations. The next example is the opposite. The observer effect has the title of a scientific theory, as does the theory of evolution, the theory of general relativity and the theory of plate tectonics. In general conversation, the word theory means not much more than a guess. To earn this title in science,

event will affect the outcome". In popular discussion the effect is usually associated with quantum physics. Many interpret the word "observer" to imply a conscious entity, which it does not. In fact, passive instruments are almost always what are being used in situations where the effect is relevant. In the case of a human observing an object, the observer effect would come into play in areas such as photons interacting with the proteins in the human eye (which can be compared to a passive instrument) and not in the way the human brain interprets the information. This is in stark contrast to how the effect is explained in many non-scientific circles where it is implied that conscious observation can alter one’s surrounding in a deliberate way.

however, an explanation must have several specific characteristics, the most important of which are that it must be testable and falsifiable; the "theory" put forth must be able to make predictions that can go wrong and if they do, the theory is modified or discarded. Each aforementioned theory, as they stand today, has never been violated by any observations or experiments. Due to the word having a different use in common language, notions that would not bear the title of a scientific theory are compared with false equivalence to notions that do. The most common example is comparing creationism to the theory of evolution. Even without comparisons, many interpret the title of a "theory" to essentially imply speculation and thus dismiss

– On Dit –

important information. Similarly, scientists and scientific publications will constantly use words like "suggests" and "indicates". This is often interpreted to show a lack of confidence, where it is more correct to say that it reflects that science works in terms of probabilities and heuristics. This is not to say that science can’t be trusted due to its use of probabilities only that science is aware that, for most situations, probability and heuristics are all that can be used. Additionally, the updating nature of scientific theories/hypotheses is often seen to reflect unreliability. In attempt to dismiss assertions of anthropogenic climate change, president Donald Trump made the tweet: "In the 1920s, people talked about global cooling, they thought the earth was cooling, now it’s global warming". This refers to a handful of hypotheses published in the 1920’s which later fed into an idea of "global cooling". It seems Trump is trying to convey climate scientists as whimsical and capricious. However, the situation is more akin to a doctor making one diagnosis but then making another after further tests than someone changing their mind on a policy. A solution to this problem would be for scientists to disregard their disdain for using absolute terms. However, the scientist in question would likely feel deceitful if they were to assert findings as irrefutable facts. Additionally, if you round up probabilities as absolutes, the public may feel deceived if predictions are inaccurate. For this reason, practitioners will seldom give absolute assurance of a "cure" for an ailment. Instead, doctors will usually reference a percentage of patients who respond positively to a treatment and in extreme cases use the wording "X percent

of patients survive for at least X months/years after treatment". The trust of the public is extremely important to the sciences and such an approach may jeopardise public faith. The alternative is for the audience to understand that science does not work in absolutes. It is fanciful to envision that all who don't understand this suddenly realise that they should educate themselves on the matter and do so promptly. Thus, it would be the responsibility of science communicators to make sure that this point is understood before speaking in such a manner. In response to the previous question, "should biological publications say “the stage where the cell divides” instead of “the mitotic phase” simply so the public can understand?" - the answer is probably "sometimes". Vernacular certainly has a place in scientific discussion, however it is also important to understand that if something is described in an accessible manner, details have almost certainly been glossed over. Finding a middle ground between common language and hard science jargon is probably the best way to communicate to the public. However, to what degree is always going to be subjective and would hinge on the judgement of the author/speaker in question. It is likely a fantasy that language can get to a stage where anyone can read any peerreviewed article and understand it perfectly. This is why "science-communication" as a profession is important. Additionally, an understanding of how science works, especially in terms of statistics and heuristics will go a long way when interacting with scientific discourse.

– On Dit –

Stupol Bingo Someone from SAlt gets called a Stalinist and goes absolutely mental

On Dit candidates that haven’t sought political backing

“I go to UniSA”

Young Uni staff member confused for student

Someone points out Swipe Right/ ForU ran a Reclaim Australia attendee one time

“Imagine if you didn’t have to pay SSAF” is met with “What’s SSAF?”

There’s a candidate you swear ran in 2014

YOU VOTE

Hack that doesn’t even go to Adelaide Uni makes an appearance

“We’re nonpolitical”

Campaigners have lost all resolve by Wednesday

Weird personality cult around Ali Amin

A student appears genuinely interested and asks a bunch of questions

SAlt attempts to sell someone Red Flag

Campaigner denies being associated with a major political party

Unite candidate changes opinions depending on who they’re talking to

Overheard post whinging about elections

A team doesn’t have any campaign material in Chinese

Someone gets banned on the first day

“你好支持中国队!"

Activate says something about “nonbinary” people

"Are you interested in left wing politics?"

Demonic Unrealistic campaigners election promise vanquished by “I like stopping voted” sticker the merger

Leighton Stuart brings food to Swipe Right campaigners

FOR A RADICAL STUDENT UNION Words by Jack Crawford AUU Board Director

– On Dit –

It’s been 50 years since 1968, the year the student movement broke onto the stage of history as a force of progress. Barricades were erected in Paris, provoking a general strike that brought the authoritarian government to its knees. The world over, students became a major force of resistance to the Vietnam War: a mad, cruel butchery that enriched weapons manufacturers, often with links to universities. At Adelaide University thousands of students, led by groups such as the radical Students for Democratic Action, mobilised against the war and for Aboriginal rights. What happened? Today, student apathy is encouraged as the norm. Successive governments have waged an economic war on young people, racism has intensified in the western world, and companies that profit off war crimes seem to rule the campus. Surely, student unions should be challenging this state of affairs, encouraging and organising as many students to speak out and fight for a better university and a better world. But instead, official student politics is tightly controlled by careerists, for whom it is a training ground for the adult Labor Party (or sometimes for the Liberals). This state of affairs needs to be shaken up. STUDENT UNIONS CAN TAKE BOLD STANCES In a world of injustice, students should aim to stand on the right side of history. Last year, during the marriage equality plebiscite, I introduced motions that the AUU should publicly call for a Yes vote, and show that it stands for basic civil rights for all students. To my dismay, these were voted down by the right-wing factions: Swipe Right and Progress.

Liberals had used to oppose marriage equality: we don’t want to rock the boat too much, the Union should stick to running like a business rather than demand social justice, etc. What we direly need is a student union willing to be bold, to stand and act against the world of pain that confronts students. Take the extreme inequality that exists in Australia today. The top 1% of Australians own more wealth than the bottom 70% combined. And the government’s plan: cut the corporate tax rate further! In response, student unions should be demanding that the rich be taxed to pay for education. Getting a bachelor’s degree shouldn’t shackle us with years of debt. In fact, the government could easily fund free education if corporate tax evasion were cracked down upon. University education was free until only 31 years ago, when Labor introduced a $250 fee. Governments have squeezed more and more out of students ever since. It’s time for that to stop. With two thirds of students in poverty, proper health care can be an incredible burden. Outrageously, vital services like dentistry, optometry and physiotherapy aren’t covered by Medicare. Student unions should be demanding that the University provide free dental practice alongside the free health practice. Further, we should fight for reinstituted and expanded penalty rates. Last year’s savage cut has made life tougher for students employed in retail, hospitality and fast food, and has failed to “create more jobs” as was promised by politicians. We should also call for a university policy that all businesses operating on campus should continue to pay penalty rates at the old level.

Again, earlier this year, I introduced a motion suggesting that the University should cut ties with the notorious arms dealer, BAE Systems. The Labor students, now numerically in charge, blocked the motion with the same conservative arguments the

– On Dit –

ANTI-RACISM We need a student union that leads anti-racist initiatives. Students do not live in a bubble, and we are impacted by all forms of racism that plague the country. Brutality to refugees is a bipartisan business in Australia. July this year marked five years since the offshore hellhole camps were opened under Julia Gillard. Student unions should demand that the Manus and Nauru camps be closed, and that refugees be brought to Australia. As a protest for refugee justice, Union House should be declared a sanctuary for refugees threatened with deportation under the immigration regime of Peter Dutton. Anti-Chinese sentiment is growing in Australia, as politicians drum up fear about, among other things, spies on university campuses. Student unions should call this out as bullshit (the NSA spies on us far more than the Chinese state) and actively promote an anti-racist culture on campus. We should show solidarity with groups of international students who are targeted by the far-right. And we should demand our University doesn’t treat international students like cash-cows – the Uni should provide them with free legal advice and assistance about their rights (work, rent, bills, etc.).

TAKING ON LABOR Left Action wants to energetically pursue this progressive agenda, and strives to involve as many students as possible in these causes well beyond election week. We are not student unionists who you will only see once a year to ask for your vote. We believe that the higher the numbers participating, the stronger the student movement. This vision brings us into conflict with the machine that is the Labor Party, which has two factions on this campus (Activate and Unite). Naturally, these factions don’t want student unions taking action that might harm the electoral fortunes of Bill Shorten. This is a party responsible for the unjust imprisonment of refugees, the parlous state of higher education, and innumerable other crimes associated with ruling for the rich in Australia. It therefore prefers a student union that shuts up about racism, doesn’t resist education cuts, and builds a wall between ordinary students and the “inthe-know” student politicians. We are far from seeing another 1968, but by taking on Labor at Adelaide Uni, we can make a start.

MENTAL SPECTACLE

– On Dit –

Words by Alexandra Nichols Anything goes, they say The highs and the lows, the rollercoaster ride of inspired inanity Pure mundanity Trickled down And distilled into the finest Champagne Itching to speak To say everything Nothing To put in a word where none should be heard And claim it was there all along The fun’s in the game dear The tightrope that doesn’t appear beneath your outstretched toe Until its almost Too late But you’ve committed to falling If that’s the way things were going to go tonight When the spotlights on you The ladies in petticoats and elephants in the back row Are watching your every move Watching to see if you’ll Soar or fall It’s all just a show for them And the king’s here in town With his army of men Who kill when he claps and bow with each drill The whole mob’s whirling tonight in this tent Just part of the crowd in our circus show head

– On Dit –

Disasterchef Australia: Culinary Politics Words by Felix Eldridge Artwork by Emily Savage

As a profession, politics is a “Dogs Breakfast,” where greedy politicians have their, “snouts in the trough,” support “fresh” or “stale” policies and criticize each other by “giving them a serve.” Their rewards are measured in their “slice of the pie” and their verbal mistakes are described as “putting their foot in their mouth.” What these familiar phrases hide is the secret relationship between food and Australian politics. Consider the recent "Super Saturday" round of byelections, where the Liberal Party suffered terrible electoral defeats in all three of the seats they contested. Experts might point to "standard by-election trends" or "better policies" of the winning candidates, but insiders know that the Prime Minister, not two days before the polls, decided to mangle an Aussie meat pie with cutlery. On the surface, the disastrous result for the Liberals in the electorate of Mayo might have been attributable to the well run, grassroots campaign of Rebekha Sharkie. However, it is more likely to have been due to the former member for Mayo, Alexander Downer, double dipping a spring roll at the post-election party. His family name will indeed be immortalised in that seat. Not as a dynasty, but as "Double Dipping Downer". At least it was soy sauce and not mayonnaise.

Food failures don’t just influence the lives of individual MPs, they also determine the fate of governments. Consider the close result in the 2016 federal election. Bill Shorten also committed a culinary faux pas. He attempted to consume a "democracy sausage" from the middle and not from the "Labor Party approved" left to right position (Liberal MPs eat from right to left and Greens MPs don’t eat meat at all). On the morning of polling day, in front of all the cameras, it’s no wonder Shorten lost the election. But the real question is: how did he win any seats at all? Sometimes the foreseeable electoral backlash over food gaffes is so great that it inspires politicians to launch pre-emptive strikes to prevent total electoral annihilation. Following the disastrous onion eating gaffe from Tony Abbott, Coalition strategists realised that the PM needed to go before they faced the polls next year. As a result, Malcolm Turnbull, unaware of Bill Shorten’s future food disaster, took decisive action and knifed him as leader, ensuring the Coalition’s speedy recovery from what might have been an electorally fatal blunder. So, the moral of this story is, if you are a politician, don’t eat on camera. And if you are a student politician, only eat . . . in-camera.

– On Dit –

Artist Feature:

ANGVS is a digital illustrator who freelances as a graphic designer for local and international clients. His unique digital style tunes into imaginative and honest creations inspired by western cartoons, hip hop and video games. He shares a few words about his process and passions.

1. Can you tell me a few things about your methods and how you work?

3. What industry experience do you have?

For my artwork I mainly use Procreate on an iPad at my studio and a larger Huion tablet for rendering an image in Photoshop. I also like producing stickers and enamel pins (They’re all available at my website.) As for my graphic design jobs, I work from my space at Mixed Spice Creative Studios.

I work with clients in Adelaide often, occasionally collaborating with artists and clients from overseas. I’ve been featured in multiple exhibitions locally and internationally. My most recent solo show DREGS was in Fiftyfive and Workshop Bar, Melbourne. Those featured artworks are still available on my website today. If you would like a portrait or other type of artwork done, please hit me up on my

2. What inspires your work?

Instagram or through my email.

Countless artists but my favourites range from digital artists like Jor Ros, Raul Urias, Musketon and Robbie Trevino. I also love the work of street artists and groups like Nychos, Aryz, Etam Cru and Low Bros. Do yourself a favour and search any of them up. As for music I’m very into hip hop from the likes of Earl Sweatshirt, A Tribe Called Quest and Brockhampton. I also find myself drawing from cartoons like The Simpsons a lot.

hi@angvs.art http://angvs.art Instagram: @angvs

– On Dit –

The Silent Killer: Political Apathy Words by Felix Eldridge

There are several reasons why young people are apathetic towards politics. Primarily, there is a general lack of understanding of politics, negative media perception, and this is rounded off with a general sentiment of political indifference. Part of the reason there is youth apathy toward politics is a lack of understanding. It is not uncommon for students not to understand the complexities of political parties, political policies and the political system. This is primarily the government’s fault for not making core courses about politics compulsory across the country. These courses would give students a basic knowledge of the legal and political system and provide them with the understanding necessary to participate fully. Another issue is negative media perceptions. It is general knowledge that the media exists to sell stories. Newspaper editors and newsroom directors don’t care what the news is, provided it sells. This means that the news could lead with a devastating volcanic eruption one day, and the birth of a celebrity’s child the next. Unlike natural disasters and celebrities, most governmental work is boring. But on rare occasions when there are scandals, these are the only things that 38

journalists care to tell us. After all, who would want to report a story where nothing interesting happens? Discounting the annual piece on positive government legislation, there are no stories about what doesn’t go wrong; there are only stories about things that do go wrong. On that note, it is true that politicians make mistakes, lie, break promises, misuse parliamentary allowances ect. But it is also true that politicians run the country smoothly, keep their word, work long hours, don’t misuse their allowances and actually make the world a better place. But what story will sell more copies? It is such an irony that the best politicians are the ones who actually work hard, not the ones who brag about how hard they work. And sad to say, the media does them no favours in this regard. It isn’t a surprise that young people are apathetic towards politicians, most of whom they will only ever see through a heavily distorted media lens. It has been made apparent, mainly through surveys and news articles, that young people tend to feel disconnected with, and indifferent towards, politics in general. For example, a recent survey conducted by Triple J of nearly 9,400 young people, found that only seven percent believed

– On Dit –

that politicians were acting in their best interests. This is appalling. Young people are supposed to be our most idealistic, our most optimistic and our most energetic, yet apathy is so entrenched within this demographic. In other countries and in other eras, minorities fought hard to beat repressive systems that prevented them from voting, now people find ways of cheating the system to avoid it. Firstly, if we are to start breaking down apathy, we must condemn these sorts of actions. With the

If you are a young person with a vision and are unsatisfied with what is on offer, then get out there and make a difference. Politicians won’t know what youth want unless it is thrust in their faces. Join a party, attend political meetings, protest, write letters to your MP, watch the news. These are all ways in which young people can engage and participate in politics and if enough do, they have the power to change policies and decisions. By failing to participate, parties will

greatest deal of respect, if you wish to waive your right to vote, you should also waive your right to criticise a government that your vote might have prevented from installing. Secondly, the youth must collectively mobilise and engage with politicians to provide them with an understanding of what we want. Politicians have their own moral views, but they also want to win elections. If there is enough public outcry over a policy or decision made, they will often consider changing it. Consider the South Australian government plans to build a uranium dump in SA and toughen drug possession laws, both of which were reversed due to popular opinion. The only way that we can influence politics is by actively participating in it.

neglect the youth demographic and this feeds disenfranchisement in a vicious circle of apathy. The only way to break the cycle is to participate. Youth activism can make a difference, but only if it can be seen and heard. There is no use sitting behind a desk dreaming about what could have been and what should be and blaming politicians for it. If you want change, seize it with both hands! Philosopher Joseph de Maistre once said: “Every nation gets the government it deserves”. Well, Student Elections are happening this week and we have a unique opportunity to show people that if we put our minds to it, we can not only get a government that we deserve, but one that we want. So, get out there, break the cycle. VOTE!

– On Dit –

IS ARTS EASIER? And why does it matter if we think it is? Words by Kathryn Simons

– On Dit –

Are Arts degrees easier than other degrees? As an Arts student myself, this idea has irritated me since the beginning of my degree, but lately I’ve been wondering whether there might actually be some truth in it. Arts might actually be easier, but not necessarily for the reasons you think. Less contact hours, few to no exams, flexible structure with few core subjects, it’s easy to see why Arts students are told we’re “lucky.” The perception of ease is intensified by the fact that Arts is known as the degree you fall into when you have no clue what you want to do.

of assessment. So if it is too subjective and personal to say definitely, does it matter if Arts is considered easier? I think it does. If we automatically assume Arts is inherently easier, not only do we run the risk of making someone feel bad about finding it difficult, we reinforce an idea without assessing the repercussions. This idea that Arts is easier has an underlying implication that it is also, to some degree, unimportant. Because when something is considered easy it tends to also be considered less important and less worthwhile than whatever is considered difficult.

However, there’s a flipside to everything. Fewer contact hours require more self-motivation to get your readings done for class and work on your assessments so you get them in on time. Few to no exams mean you have multiple important assessments throughout the semester requiring you to undertake research and come up with new, convincing arguments. While there isn’t the stress of exams to worry about, the constant stream of assessments is exhausting.

Arts also doesn’t lead to a set profession, thus it may be seen as less practical than other degrees. Much like the attitude towards the arts in general, the pursuit of an Arts degree is acceptable only in past tense, as a background to those already established. It is not seen as useful in itself. Art History, Literature, History, Classics, Music, Language, all of the subjects taught in the Arts are things that impact our lives daily. They have shaped who we are as a society, who we will be and help us understand the world we live in. We benefit endlessly from these subjects but treat the pursuit of understanding them, engaging with them and creating them with either little respect or as the acceptable pursuit of a special, “talented” few. Those “transferable skills” lecturers have to use to justify their courses are so much more than a

Yet, why is it that students from other disciplines who take Arts electives are able to achieve better grades, easier than in their normal subjects? Why is it easier to pass an Arts subject without trying very hard? In Arts there is no right or wrong answer like you might find in another discipline. This subjectivity means as long as you put together a somewhat coherent argument that fulfils the base assessment requirements, your tutor is likely to pass you. It also gives you a lot of freedom to think and create ideas in whatever direction you choose. Subjectivity might be one possible reason, but could it be humans are just more naturally inclined to the creative as opposed to the scientific? It took thousands of years to develop the scientific disciplines as we know them today, yet we have been using the creative and analytical skills taught in Arts to try and understand our world since time immemorial. This could explain why so many people fear subjects like maths but feel freedom in creative subjects. Not everyone will find the relative freedom of Arts assignments a positive and most of us, in the midst of stress, will wish we were doing the opposite kind

skillset for a job. The ability to consider and analyse something beyond its face-value, to read texts, histories and art through different lenses and to make arguments based on research makes us—I would argue—more openminded, less judgmental and more empathetic. Arts isn’t about getting a job, but that doesn’t mean its teachings aren’t valuable. Is Arts easier? Ultimately the answer depends entirely on what you find difficult in studying, but its ease does not make it easy nor less worthy of study. This misunderstanding about the value of Arts education and arts, in general, tells us more about how we value art in society than it does about whether Arts is easier or not. Until we value the role art plays in our lives and the things it teaches us, Arts degrees will continue to be seen as easier.

– On Dit –

spaces and places in academia Words by Chloe Cannell Chloe Cannell talks to current PhD students Shawna Marks, Paul Chambers and Simone Marangon about the upcoming Gender, Sex and Sexualities (GSS) postgraduate conference, and their involvement as members of the organising committee. The fifth annual South Australian Postgraduate and Early Career Researcher Gender, Sex and Sexualities conference will be hosted by the University of Adelaide, Napier 102 lecture theatre September 19-20. The aim of this conference is for researchers to share their work across disciplines, such as sociology, creative writing, visual art, anthropology, politics, health science, Indigenous studies and more, in a safe, supportive environment. This year’s theme is “Space and Place: Conceptions of movement, belonging and boundaries”. The theme is intentionally broad to allow academics from multiple disciplines to explore and present ideas of spaces and places and how they can be intersected with gender, race and sexuality.

how was this year’s theme decided? Shawna: “This year’s theme was decided by the committee as we looked for an overlap in the research from our varying fields. Last year a lot of people talked about spaces, and at the time the Human Rights Commission was looking into sexual harassment in universities. Space can be considered in other places, too, like work, street, or more spiritually — like a connection to country.” Simone: “We wanted the theme to be open. When we’re early career researchers, we take things very literally, so we all agreed that the notion of space and place can be interpreted in so many different ways. It was a way to make sure that it was super inclusive, and that a lot of different people might reach out to us with their abstracts.”

why did you get involved with the GSS conference committee? Paul: “I found the 2017 conference really compelling. I really enjoyed it from the word go. It was really good, because it was a space where anyone could get up and say what they had to say — and a lot of people I think we’re speaking for the first time. “It was very supportive and I heard perspectives that I had never heard before. I thought next year, if I’m not going to speak at it, I’ll at least help.” Simone: “I formed some friendships with the people from the committee and it made me realise in the first year of my PhD that what I’m doing is really important. So when they suggested I should join the committee I thought why not.”

– On Dit –

why is there a focus on postgraduate students & Early Career Researchers (ECRs)? Simone: “It’s meant to be for people who are in the early stages of their academic career like PhD students, and perhaps people who have just come out of their PhD and haven’t presented a lot. I think a lot of the time when you’re first starting out as a researcher, it’s really scary to have to submit an abstract to a conference where you might be going and speaking in the same session as someone who already has a PhD, and has maybe 5, 10, 20, or however many, years under their belt. It’s quite intimidating. An environment focused on early career researchers is meant to be supportive and may provide an opportunity to receive constructive feedback on presentations.” Shawna: “This conference is for postgrad, honours, masters and ECRs because there isn’t much support for these young academics or a space for them to connect with each other. At other academic events, people will grandstand, and ask questions to promote their own work. Or they can be unfriendly or intimidating. The GSS conference aims to be a supportive and non-threatening environment to help those at honours level feel more comfortable presenting, or for postgraduate students to meet people and build connections to avoid isolation.” Paul: “The regular conferences cost quite a lot of money and they can be quite daunting. It is hard if you’re a poor postgrad student to travel without funding and grants. It’s great to have something ongoing in this city that’s across disciplines, across universities and is quite a grassroots project. There should be a lot more of it.”

many postgraduate students present for the first time at the GSS conference. how did you find presenting your papers in previous years? Simone: “It was the second conference presentation I’ve ever done—and the first time I’ve ever presented anything from my honours thesis. It was pretty nerve-wracking, but one of the big reasons why I wanted to get involved with the committee was just how beautiful and supportive the conference atmosphere was. “It felt as though I was walking into a sort of beautiful utopia where other people were as interested as me in thinking and talking about gender, sex and sexualities. It was a beautiful little haven for all of us to hang out together.”

for someone who’s never been to the conference, what should they expect? Paul: “Expect a range of views on many subjects that possibly could change your own views on how the world is—so it could be challenging. Expect to be challenged, to be educated, and prepare to have your mind opened.” Simone: “A really, really supportive and welcoming environment. I found that from the moment I walked in, people were so open and lovely and happy to be there, and be a part of a community of people who are working in areas that are really important, and sometimes undervalued in society, so you should come.” All are welcome to attend the Gender, Sex and Sexualities conference, whether postgrad, undergrad or just passionate about the theme and intersectionality of the conference. 43

– On Dit –

ecoversity, more like ecotoryism. Words by Kim Kardashian Artwork by Emily Savage If there was a takeaway lesson from the plastic straw cull, it should be that corporate environmentalism proves to be a glass half empty approach to climate change. This is because banning plastic straws only serves a dual purpose for business; generally, it is a cost-cutting measure (one less liability!), that does not compromise the ability to make more sales. But surely, they too care for the cute baby seals, right? Greenwashing is the act of carefully constructing an image to appear environmentally friendly, even though your actions and motives may suggest otherwise. Tools that will aid this process include the crafty usage of social media, marketing paraphernalia and distribution of free KeepCups; all of which barely make a dent in the structural issues borne from human-induced climate change (that is, large increases of greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide and methane). We only need to look on our campus to see that Ecoversity – the University’s environmental engagement program – fundamentally fails in delivering its goal of "developing a campus culture that values and applies sustainable practices”. Their brand of sustainability instead focuses on the pillars of privilege, pollution and paradoxical statements.

– On Dit –

The program is notorious for giving away Keep Cups but only if you can endure the dearth of intellectual conversations speaking ill of single-use plastics. This attitude is echoed through Ecoversity’s Facebook brand; with daily re-shares of content from “I fucking love Science” or making a captain’s call in support of quasi-green initiatives. On the 8 July 2018, Ecoversity posted an image, revealing its true stance on single-use plastics. The post was for eradicating “senseless packaging” from major supermarkets and also, one of utmost privilege. Ecoversity encouraged consumers to

The only senseless thing about this post was how the program chose to deliver its message of environmental sustainability. The program clearly encourages it, but only for those in the upper echelons of society who can afford to participate. That is, if you’re a working student you should be ready to clean up the mess made by faux-woke ecotories in aisle 5. This similar sentiment was present in the Emissions Trading Scheme - a policy that encouraged polluters to offset emissions through purchasing “carbon credits” from large swathes of forests in the Amazon or Indonesia. A murky message packaged in extreme privilege that is destructive to both the environment and the lives of working people, if I ever saw one.

remove all plastic from the products, dump it in the shop, before making the transaction in the name of “sustainability”. When questioned about the motive in the comment section, the team concluded that: “if enough people participate it is sure to catch the attention of the CEOs and other decision makers”. Following this, was a pro-Monarchy post praising the Queen for opposing the use of straws at Sandringham House. “Yass Queen” indeed. Ecoversity love lauding the minimal efforts of upper society and their archaic approaches on addressing climate change.

If frothing over the plastic straw cull wasn’t enough, the program fails to communicate its purpose because no-one takes it seriously. At a campus with up to 30,000 enrolments, around 700 people have engaged with the page through a “like” on Facebook platform. A similar, piss-weak number makes up their Instagram audience. In an attempt to “grow” the audience, Ecoversity ran a meme competition engaging with submissions of “sustainability memes” in exchange for a Keep Cup prize pack. Climate change is indeed serious issue, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (fifth assessment report) suggesting that it is 95% certain that the rise in global mean temperatures is caused by humans. The same kind of humans who envision that peak promotion of sustainable practice is achieved through memes. But don’t let this detract from their activities on campus.

the plight of privilege

– On Dit –

Ecoversity is a prized cash-cow of the university’s marketing arm. However, no amount of sustainability memes can conceal the fact that the University of Adelaide is unashamedly an anti-environment campus. It boasts the Australian School of Petroleum Engineering; a field of work that exploits the environment for oil and gas reserves, delivers profits to the pockets of Gina Rhinhart. It holds investments in fossil fuels; putting student money into companies that dig up coal for power. It embraces the defence force and military spending, recently announcing a plethora of partnerships with naval organisations. Some of these industries are the largest producers of greenhouse gasses and are unsustainable in the long run. Historically, the campus has a culture built upon mining money; a former student Reg Sprigg started

But investing in Ecoversity has paid significant dividends for the university. In 2013, the University of Adelaide was named a Fair-Trade Campus. The crux of it is this, Ecoversity pays an annual fee, around $900-1500, to retain its Fair-Trade Campus accreditation. The minimum requirements for this are simple: have the Student Union pass a motion in support of the program’s activities and run at least one Fair-Trade promo event per year. The accreditation is slapped onto disposable KeepCups and pamphlets given out at Open Days and O’Week, while the university pockets your cash to invest in climate-polluting industries. This is the epitome of greenwashing: actively engaging in destructive practices but still buying your way into the good books, the credentials of which should probably be reviewed and strenuously questioned.

up SANTOS and Beach Petroleum which certain faculties benefit financially from.

longer receive endowments from climate-damaging industries. This was the result of student-led campaign that tipped off nation-wide change. At a crucial time for the health of both humankind and planet earth, students need to refocus and organise at grassroots level to intervene with power structures. We cannot blindly rely on straw bans, KeepCups and ecotoryism to save our fragile planet.

the principle of a paradox

The Guardian reported that several universities in the United Kingdom divested from fossil fuels; including the University of Edinburgh who will no

– On Dit –

[TRANS]GRESSIONS Words by Partrick Eddie Redmayne in The Danish Girl; Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club; Elle Fanning in 3 Generations; the casting of cisgender individuals for transgender roles is something becoming increasingly contested in recent years. In a world where trans voices are already belittled, reduced to rubble amongst a majority, it is important to be rightfully inclusive in Hollywood: the epitome of film culture! There is one circumstance I would like to address: Scarlett Johansson recently came under fire for her choice to accept the role of transgender man Tex Gill in the upcoming film Rub and Tug. Amid backlash from the public, Johansson dropped the role. Johansson has been wrapped up in controversy before, upon her portrayal of a character in the liveaction film adaptation of popular Japanese manga and animation, Ghost in the Shell. So why is there such tension surrounding the casting of marginalised people in film? The pressure against Johansson revolved around the belief that the role should have been given to a trans actor, not a cisgender woman. This belief is grounded in the assumption that film media has many purposes: to inform, to entertain, to propagate ideas. The reason transgender people advocate for our representation is because we tire of our identity being misconstrued, stigmatised, and mocked. If we insert and include trans people in film, we promote

better understanding of the community, and break barriers of not only cisnormativity, but cis-monotony. It challenges thought and promotes the growth of understanding. Notable trans actress Laverne Cox (known for her role as transgender woman Sophia Burset in Orange is the New Black) is a prime example of accurate and inclusive representation in media. Her journey as a black trans woman in prison is discussed and interpreted within the show in a way that doesn’t exploit, nor demonise, her transness and overall identity. In a recent interview, Cox was questioned about her stance on Johansson’s exit from Rub and Tug, in which she praised the trans actors who have been offered roles, proving that “trans people can get the job done.” Transgender people often fail to succeed in film simply because our presence is dulled—ultimately misunderstood—in the every-day. This carries into the creative industry. Nevertheless, this is not writings of “oh, woe is me!” Trans communities and individuals are strong, capable, and present: always present. We fight because we are here, and simultaneously not. Trans people are still denied opportunities based solely on their gender identity. Medical treatment is but one important example. It is obvious that if a trans person were to be offered a role for the screen, that is something revolutionary in of itself. Even so, trans people rarely receive cis roles, and therefore rely on trans roles to hoist themselves upon.

– On Dit –

The fact that cis people are cast for trans roles also reinforces the outdated idea that trans people are just cis people in “dress-up”, causing real transgender people distress as the notion leaks into their lives. Trans women are not just men in dresses, for instance. It allows them to not be taken seriously, or that they are somehow “faking” their identity, perpetuating further violence and alienation.

Many trans individuals are creators. It is only natural we would gravitate toward creative industry and outfit in a society dominated by the ageing status quo of binary thought and systematic, predictable work, something that contradicts the very nature of our being. We want to be the ones to relay our stories and feel appreciated, not have their chances stolen by cisgender people.

We are just now reaching a stage within our society where transgender voices are being heard and acknowledged, and each small stepping stone helps their progression and inclusion into the mainstream. One of the main arguments that support cis casting for trans roles is the simple notion of wanting the “best person” for the role, be it in terms of skill, exposure, popularity, or revenue.

The second argument is if the character is pretransition (i.e., has not undergone hormone replacement therapy [HRT] or surgeries) they should be portrayed by a cisgender person.

Mini-series Hit & Miss features a trans woman played by cis actress Chloe Sevigny; creator Paul Abbot stated he didn’t seek a trans actor for the role simply because he preferred a “big name” to be attached to the series. This type of thinking undermines all that trans communities have strived for in terms of inclusion, and rides exclusively on the cast’s monetary value. It denies the opportunity for trans actors to offer their potential from the very beginning. In interviews with actors who have played trans roles, as well as directors and producers, there is a common response showing support of the transgender community and inclusion of trans people in roles. However, their actions clearly contradict their supposed values, once again severing opportunities for trans people.

It is a misconception that all transgender people undergo surgery or HRT, as there is no one-size-fitsall for how a trans person chooses to transition and present themselves. While many trans people elect to medically transition, there are those who do not, and are still comfortable within themselves. This is but another societal misunderstanding that costs transgender people acting opportunities. Johansson acknowledged that her acceptance of the trans role was wrong. In a statement, she explains the choice was insensitive after listening to, and learning from, the trans community. I am proud of my transgender identity. Having public discussions on a regular basis about trans issues is something I’ve adapted to, though I am always willing to talk about my experiences and spread positive information. It is through the willingness of others to listen to us with an open mind they can become more accepting and gain a better understanding of our experiences, values, and hopes.

Twen.. teen? How Hollywood warps perceptions of what teenagers should be. Words by Ashleigh Trenwith Artwork by Anzelle de Kock

– On Dit –

In late July this year, debate broke out online when 16-year-old actress Sadie Stanley was announced for the lead role of Kim Possible in Disney’s live action version of the children’s cartoon of the same name. When a picture of Sadie in costume as Kim was released on Twitter, users immediately started criticising. Many pointed out Sadie’s young looking appearance, making comments like “She looks 11”. Others instantly began commenting names of older actresses they believed should’ve gotten the role.

However, this also conditions a teenage viewer to associate a fully developed, 20+ year-old body with what a teenager should look like. This means that on the rare occasion that an actual teenager, such as Sadie, is cast, people falsely assume that they’re too young to play the role due to their youthful, less developed appearance. But in reality, they’re much more age-appropriate than older actors. So what effects does this have on teenage viewers?

However, in the cartoon version of Kim Possible, Kim was only 14 in Season One and 18 in the show’s final season, making Sadie a much more age-appropriate candidate than many of the actresses fans put forward for the role. One of the most popular suggestions was Riverdale actress Madelaine Petsch who is 23 years old, while her Riverdale character is a high school student.

Clinical psychologist, Barbara Greenberg, states that casting adults in teenage roles can “give the message that they’re supposed to look good all the time… a person in their 20s is more likely to have a consistent appearance, whereas an adolescent may change more frequently.” People in their 20s are also less likely to have issues such as acne and braces, both of which are very common in teenagers.

In fact, if you look at most Hollywood films and

This is especially true considering that many of the

TV shows, it is very rare to see teenage characters played by actual teenagers: most production companies instead cast actors in their 20s and sometimes even 30s to portray these roles. Many popular shows such as Pretty Little Liars, The Vampire Diaries, Gossip Girl, Glee and Riverdale, just to name a few, have employed a cast that is predominantly aged 20+, even though the shows are set in high schools, centring around high school aged characters.

productions centred around teenage characters raise issues regarding self image. However, when the teenagers dealing with these issues are played by blemish-free, conventionally attractive adults, actual teenagers watching these shows or films may see this and begin comparing themselves to the actors on screen. Naturally, this may result in them believing that they are expected by society to look a certain way.

This is usually due to legal limitations put on Hollywood producers that prevent a minor working over a certain amount of hours due to schooling requirements. This means that many production companies tend to favour older actors as they have greater availability and fewer legal restrictions attached to them. 51

– On Dit –

There is also the issue of people subconsciously sexualising teenage actors who come into the spotlight. When an actor is in the public eye, inevitably, society begins to judge their appearance. Because teenage characters are generally played by older actors who are not only more developed physically but also generally of legal age, audiences don’t see problems with looking at and judging their bodies in a sexual way. This also means that when teenagers are cast, because an audience is so used to being critical of adults in the public eye, they don’t really think about whether or not it’s correct to judge and look at a 16 year old in the same way as they would an actor in their mid 20s. The result is that many teenagers in Hollywood are unfairly treated and sexualised. This also adds to many teenagers, mainly girls, feeling body conscious and as if society expects them to have a certain type of figure, which is quite often unrealistic. Furthermore, there is the fact that due to having fewer legal restrictions, older actors are generally made to shoot a lot more sexually risqué scenes than would normally be expected, or allowed, of a minor. These scenes are typically greatly dramatised, due to films and movies usually being meant for entertainment rather than realism. This often results in teens who watch these scenes feeling self conscious about their own sexual experiences and as though they should be having experiences like what is shown on screen.

Although it can be argued that a lot of these shows and films are for entertainment purposes and not necessarily meant to be taken seriously or re-enacted, it is also important to remember that teenagers are known to be the most impressionable age group and tend to look up to celebrities and idealised images of people in the media. Arguably, this could sometimes actually be a good thing: teenagers could benefit from looking up to someone older who has their life together and set goals accordingly. Yet, this could also result in teenagers still setting unrealistic expectations for themselves, both mentally and physically. It is in these ways that adults playing teenagers can be harmful to teenagers and the image they have of themselves. Potentially, this could be improved by teenagers being more normalised and accurately represented in media.

– On Dit –

Welcome to the Muskalypse

Words by Caitlin Ellen Moore

I think Elon Musk might lead us into the apocalypse. I remember the moment this thought first crossed my mind. I was out back at work, listening to a co-worker update me on the Thai Cave situation, when she mentioned that Elon Musk had tweeted his own input. I distinctly remember the frown my lips curled into and the reaction my co-worker gave. It was then I delved into my new-born theory and mistrust of Elon Musk, something that’s been growing in the weeks since. For those who’ve been living under a rock, Elon Musk is a South African-born American entrepreneur and businessman. In 1999 he cofounded X.com which is now the PayPal we’re all familiar with. In 2002, PayPal was acquired by eBay for $1.5 billion in stock. The combination of this alongside the sale of his first start up,made Musk a multimillionaire in his late 20s. Things you may know him for, business wise: SpaceX, a company founded to “revolutionize space technology”, and Tesla, a company that works in electric cars, solar panels and clean energy storage. Tesla and Elon Musk were the ones who offered us that battery and then had a bunch of cars driving around the state late last year.

Things you may know him for, internet wise: Flamethrowers, sending a spaceman in a car into space with the words “DON’T PANIC”, dating Grimes, calling out the media for being liars, unicorns, and memes. So. Many. Memes. Now that we’re caught up, here’s my opinion: I don’t trust Elon Musk. It could be my feminist ideals. Immediately angry that yet another rich white man is in a prominent position of power. A bit of research shows that his relationship to his first wife wasn’t the greatest. Justine opened up about her divorce to Marie Claire in 2010 and her quote “If you were my employee, I would fire you” just screams warning signs. It could be because I study media and politics. His recent tweets about “fake news” and attacks on the media on Twitter for a number of things remind me of a certain US President. These include: “disproportionate covers” of automobile

– On Dit –

deaths involving Tesla, “improperly highlighting” injuries at his factory, and helping to elect Donald Trump. After a long Twitter rant his proposed solution is Pravda, a service to rate the credibility of news. It could be that I don’t fully understand what he’s doing. I just don’t get science unless it’s delivered in an easy-to-understand-science-fiction way. But research shows me that NASA has doubts in Musk’s plans to terraform Mars. All his plans for driverless vehicles are continuously pushed back, won’t fit into the current traffic structures, and his Hyperloop plans (from the Boring Company) and costs have been bested by subway projects in Madrid, Seoul, and Stockholm.

It could be a combination of all of these things that led to the idea that Elon Musk may well lead us into the apocalypse. My theory is that we, as a Western society, may continue to trust Elon Musk (though it’s wavering a little on Twitter). We’ll invest in him, buy his products, have our homes and transport Tesla branded. It will play out like an episode of Black Mirror where everything seems to be okay, but then the penny drops, and you realise that everything is fucked. We may watch him land on Mars and then in 20, 30 years time, have him turn on us. It’ll be sudden. We may not even realise it’s happening till it has happened and we’re all living in the Muskalypse… Or the Muskverse.

It could also be a general wariness of Silicon Valley and their anti-social tendencies. It could be Musk and Tesla using the artwork of a farting unicorn by a Colorado potter without due credit. Or it could just be because his last name is Musk. Do you know what musk is? It’s that strong sweet smell, used in making perfumes, taken from that glandular sac of male musk deer.

– On Dit –

TRUMP AND IRAN Words by Lawrence Hull

The beginning of August saw Donald Trump re-impose sanctions against Iran. These sanctions came just three months after Trump withdrew from the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), colloquially known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. The difference between the sanctions under Trump and previous sanctions is that the US doesn’t have support from its allies and those with whom it has diplomatic relations. The US is essentially going it alone. The EU is putting forward measures to maintain the previous deal as much as possible. China has refused

requests from the US to stop purchasing oil from Iran, and Turkey has insisted that it too will continue trading with Iran. The US is following a tough-talking line with Iran as it did with North Korea. It seems that the strategy of the White House is to push these nations’ leaders into a corner and then hope that they will come to the table and negotiate. While the tough-talking rhetoric may have worked in bringing about a meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, Iran seems much more defiant.

– On Dit –

Iran isn’t interested in meeting with the US president, nor is it prepared to renegotiate the nuclear deal. At this point who can blame them? The Trump Administration has proven itself to be belligerent, untrustworthy, and unstable. Trump has claimed several times that the deal is bad, but has failed to demonstrate why exactly. While the Republicans and the like often criticise Iran and the nuclear deal, no one has put forward a better alternative. It has been widely reported that withdrawing from the deal was done out of spite, to unravel what was deemed to be a great foreign policy achievement by Barack Obama.

Republicans love to use the words "supporting terror" to rally their followers into blindly believing all that they claim. But what really is terror? And what really is a terrorist organisation? What’s also left out of this discussion is the effect the sanctions have on the Iranian people. The White House giving lip service purporting to support the Iranian people shows how gullible they think Iranians are. Let’s be clear - the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal is solely about the control of resources with a blatant disregard for the human cost. This is a narrative all too familiar to the United States.

Some in the US suggested that Iran has used the wealth obtained as a result of the nuclear deal to pursue regional dominance and support terrorism.

The US fears that Iran may become more of a regional power in the Middle East. The Shia-led regime of Iran has a presence in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq.

John Bolton, the US National Security Adviser has recently claimed that the sanctions aren’t aimed at regime change, rather they are designed at curbing Iran’s "support for terror".

The more powerful Iran becomes, the more chance they have of influencing other governments in the Middle East, and the harder it will be for the US to control them.

â&#x20AC;&#x201C; On Dit â&#x20AC;&#x201C;

As it stands, the US does not have influence in Iran, nor does it control its natural resources. The US has a long history of attempting to control the natural resources of the Middle East. As Noam Chomsky has mentioned several times - control of natural resources leads to control over the world. While the US claims not to want regime change in Iran, this statement should be taken with a grain of salt. A puppet regime in Iran would serve the US agenda perfectly, potentially allowing them to control Iranâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s foreign policy and natural resources. The US may be hoping that sanctions will bring about the overthrow of the Iranian regime but it underestimates the anti-American sentiment and resolve of Iranian people. Judging by its recent erratic policy decisions, the White House can not be taken seriously as a stable and honest broker. Its obsession with global dominance and economic hegemony is of course fuelled by the greedy capitalist system, and Iran is too aware of the real intentions of the US, no matter how their justifications are decorated with false narratives.

Iran is left with three choices; capitulate to US demands and basically surrender their sovereignty; take retaliatory measures, such as blocking the transportation of oil through the Strait of Hormuz; or try to hold out for as long as they can in the hope that when a new US President is elected he/she will return to the deal. The first two are highly unlikely to occur. Blocking the Strait of Hormuz may provide the pretext the US is looking for to initiate military action. The third option is more likely. But it will depend on how Iran can weather the storm. The Iranian regime is well known for its abysmal human rights record, but punishing the entire country with sanctions when the government was compliant with the nuclear deal is just lunacy. The world is all too familiar with the human consequences of US greed. Diplomacy is always a better option, and bullying other countries into coming to the negotiating table will only add to global instability.

IVES E ARCH H T M O ) FR 4.4 (2016 ISSUE 8

K BY ARTWOR HIN DELIA C

Get Social and...

Search for on

Facebook, Instagram & Snapchat

Events Discounts Advice $20 for 6 Months $40 for 1.5 Years