Speak up Be heard: Other

It's been brought to my attention that Facilities Grounds Services plans to scrape the ASU Arboretum Herb Garden and the Social Science Garden programming. I find this very concerning. These gardens provide the ASU community (especially students) a valuable place to learn to garden in the desert, connect with nature, and experience natural aromatherapy. It can be especially beneficial to their mental health, particularly for the international students who can find plants and scents and flavors from home like garlic chives, mint, and Holy Basil. Leafy greens are being grown there for the Pitchfork Pantry. Once again, this could be a huge mental (and physical) health boost for students in need who may not get to have much-needed nutrients from fresh, organic food very often, if at all. Places like these could also be used to provide a soothing atmosphere and activity for specific student communities like veterans, and a place to learn for agribusiness, sustainability/food systems, or biology students. I've put this in the "Other" category, but it could just as easily fall under "Sustainability," which is an ASU core value. Please don't get rid of these small corners of campus that provide such a good benefit to so many people, especially vulnerable populations.

Is the ASU food bank/pantry available to staff? Considering the economic realities facing ASU staff, I propose that access to the Pitchfork Pantry food bank be extended to all employees. Here are several compelling reasons why this initiative is necessary and beneficial:
Financial Hardship: Many ASU staff members are struggling to make ends meet due to the widening gap between salaries and the cost of living. Access to the food bank can provide essential support for those facing financial hardship, ensuring they have access to nutritious food without additional financial burden.
Employee Well-being: Financial stress can significantly impact employee well-being and productivity. By providing access to the food bank, ASU demonstrates its commitment to supporting the holistic health of its staff members, promoting a positive work environment, and reducing stress levels among employees.
Retention and Recruitment: Offering access to essential resources like the food bank can enhance employee retention and recruitment efforts. When employees feel supported by their organization during challenging times, they are more likely to remain loyal to the institution. Additionally, prospective employees may be more attracted to ASU knowing that the institution prioritizes the welfare of its staff.
Fulfillment of University Values: ASU prides itself on fostering a diverse and inclusive community that prioritizes equity and social responsibility. Providing access to the food bank aligns with these values by ensuring that all staff members, regardless of their financial situation, have access to basic necessities.
Community Support: The Pitchfork Pantry is a valuable resource that serves the ASU community by addressing food insecurity. By extending access to staff members, ASU demonstrates its commitment to supporting the entire university community and fostering a culture of compassion and support.
In conclusion, extending access to the Pitchfork Pantry food bank to ASU staff members is a proactive and compassionate response to the financial challenges many of us are facing. By implementing this initiative, ASU can demonstrate its commitment to the well-being of its employees and uphold its values of equity and inclusion.

Alternately, providing free parking could help offset our inflationary burden. Parking expenses can represent a significant financial burden for ASU staff members, particularly those who commute long distances to campus.
Providing free parking for employees would ease this financial strain and contribute to a more positive work environment by eliminating a source of stress for staff members. Additionally, free parking can serve as an attractive incentive for both current and prospective employees, enhancing ASU's recruitment and retention efforts.

We are all struggling terribly.

I am utterly disappointed, disturbed and frustrated with the lack of equal appropriation of funds for all Staff Helping Staff applicants. I submitted an application upon the recommendation of my co-worker. This co-worker (also a close personal friend) experienced a hardship with costly car repairs and was awarded the full amount requested to repair her car. When I experienced THE SAME car issues and submitted an application for THE SAME amount - I WAS DENIED! I replicated the wording on my hardship statement with her assistance. I do not feel this program offers assistance to those that truly need assistance, but rather to those that need to "get a bill paid" and ignore those that submit applications based on merit and true hardships! I struggled with submitting this submission, but was overwhelmed with the clear inequity this program bases it's award/denial decisions on! I will not encourage others nor speak highly of what this program has to offer solely based on my own experience with the biased application decision making.

I'm disappointed that a DEIAB committee is having an in-person only event. This excludes many remote employees. It is not equitable because attendees on different campuses will have to take more time of their day to attend and also because there is limited attendance. It is not accessible because not everyone can easily travel around campus. As a remote out of state employee, this makes me feel like I do not belong. If a hybrid event is not possible, I would at least like an acknowledgement that the event planners know they are excluding people.

I am extremely disappointed in ASU 's decisions to try to cancel the Messrs. Prager and Kirk lecture, then to fire Lin Blake, and finally to terminate Ms. Atkinson, in spite of her achieving the excellent result of over 25,000 listeners per WSJ, Opinion section, 6/20/23. The biggest loser is the Barrett Honors College. Future Barrett students can take their business elsewhere. New faculty will prudently consider ASU's narrow-mindedness and censoring.

Given the recent reversals in advertising campaigns, such as Bud Light, due to entanglements in cultural issues causing negative effects on companies' businesses, I believe ASU should likewise consider a reversal in terminating Ms. Atkinson and its future actions. ASU should live up to its green-light rating.

The 39 faculty members pushing their agenda to censor people holding different personal views need to be enlightened about allowing minority peer voices to be heard. Did any of these 39 signers feel pressure to acquiesce? Why not consider the six minority non-signers, who bravely stood up to the majority of their peers, since diversity is a Barrett value? If the 39 do not want to listen, or would like to request a counter lecturer, so be it, but they should not have the right to block speakers with whom they disagree.

Today's (June 21), WSJ, China Tries to Cancel an art Show in Poland, article expresses "China often attempts to censor speech abroad that's critical of the Communist Party" exampled by China's attempts to cancel an artwork exhibit by a Chinese-dissident, Badiucao, depicting true events surrounding communism. A senior Chinese diplomat said showing Badiucao's work would "hurt the feelings of the Chinese people." The reasoning is remarkably similar by those faculty who condemned and wanted to censor the lecture by Kirk and Prager for hurting the LGBT group's feelings.

Poland's bravery is heartily admired for not canceling Badiucao and cowering; unless ASU reverses its decision, ASU's reputation will be soiled by its cowardliness, and likely hit both the number of student applications and its future faculty who value their own freedom of speech.

I just realized we have no 'STAFF' or 'STAFF COUNCIL' folder in the ASU Brand Library. I feel that this would be appropriate.