‘Game of Thrones’ season 8 recap – Episode 2: ‘A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms’

Winter is here: The final season of “Game of Thrones” is one of the most highly anticipated television events of the last decade. Follow our columnists as they explore students’ weekly reactions as an iconic era of pop culture comes to an end. Beware, spoilers lie ahead.

Death is coming!

But first, we return to Winterfell for a fairly anticlimactic – if uncharacteristically wholesome – build up to the long-awaited battle.

The episode opens with Jaime (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau), who faces a room of people who hate him. Daenerys (Emilia Clarke) and Sansa (Sophie Turner) would like to see him dead, until Brienne (Gwendoline Christie) steps in to vouch for his honor. The moment is sweet, calling back to Jaime and Brienne’s friendship from seasons ago and re-establishing their respect for each other.

Sansa takes her word, and Jon (Kit Harington) supports the decision, saying Jaime can stay to fight. Two against one gives Daenerys no choice but to agree her remaining dragons will have to wait another day for a quick snack. But clearly, her power doesn’t extend as far as she once thought it did.

Arya (Maisie Williams) – fierce as ever – is raring to fight the dead, despite her friend Gendry (Joe Dempsie) telling her that the White Walkers are scarier than any foe she has ever faced. But Arya just throws a few knives in response, establishing the theme for the rest of the episode: The battle is almost here and death is near.

Daenerys then goes to talk to Sansa to find some common ground. Sansa says Jon’s love for Daenerys worries her because, according to her, “Men do stupid things for women.” She has a point. After all, her brother Robb Stark married the woman he loved, and it didn’t turn out well. Daenerys, however, insists that Jon is one of two men she knows to be true to their word – the first, of course, being her deceased husband Khal Drogo.

But their bonding session comes to a screeching halt when Sansa asks her about the North’s independence if they make it out alive and when Daenerys takes back the Iron Throne. With an eerie silence, the queen removes her hand away from Sansa’s before they are interrupted, making it clear that Daenerys intends to keep the power in her grasp.

[RELATED: ‘Game of Thrones’ season 8 recap – Episode 1: ‘Winterfell’]

Fourth-year economics student Zoha Mortazavi said she felt the scene was important because it seemed the two get along, but it didn’t happen because of the threat Daenerys poses to Sansa’s power. Yet neither of them know Jon is the true heir, and their anger is misplaced, she said.

But romance and power struggles are tabled as the wildling Tormund (Kristofer Hivju) reports that the army of dead will arrive before the sun rises. Tormund sums their situation up best: “We are all going to die.”

Despite the doom and gloom, the most touching scene of the episode soon follows, in which some of the main characters sit by the fireplace and Brienne reveals that she is not a knight because it is against custom for a woman to be a knight. But as a knight – and someone who clearly cares deeply for Brienne – Jaime states that he can knight her.

Brienne kneels and Jaime proclaims her “Brienne of Tarth, a knight of the Seven Kingdoms.” It beautifully brings Brienne’s storyline full circle, as she finally receives the recognition she has deserved since first appearing on the show in season two.

Third-year political science student Karla Aparicio said she felt the scene foreshadows Brienne’s death in next week’s episode.

“Her life goal was to be a knight and she got that,” Aparicio said. “It just feels like such a goodbye.”

The episode ends with Jon and Daenerys down in Winterfell’s crypt, where Jon reveals the truth: He is the son of Lyanna Stark and her brother Rhaegar Targaryen. Daenerys doesn’t seem to care much about the fact that she’s had sex with her nephew; instead, the worried look on her face suggests that she’s much more bothered by Jon’s claim to the Iron Throne.

In that moment, Mortazavi said Daenerys realizes the North is not going to stand behind her.

In an episode devoted to subtle character moments, it’s clear that Daenerys will have her work cut out for her to maintain her current power status. But there are currently more pressing matters to handle; with the army of the dead only minutes away, it will be interesting to see how this newfound power struggle plays out in the upcoming battle.

Overall, the second episode continued to build the pressure as the season progresses. Though it felt a bit slow paced, it was necessary to have all characters’ relationships and emotions established before the battle of Winterfell next week. Fans should prepare for deaths and tears in the coming week.

Conference provides space for women to network, discuss workplace issues

Ryan Hilliard grew up reading “Dear America,” a series of novels written from the perspectives of young girls in different moments of history. However, throughout her academic career, she found a lack of historical literature written about or by women.

This made Hilliard realize she wanted to write more literature about women from a female perspective.

Hilliard, a graduate student in history at UCLA, spoke at a conference hosted by the American Association of University Women at UCLA on campus Friday. The conference, which focused on women in academia and the workplace, featured Carmen Rios, the digital editor of Ms., the first nationally circulated feminist magazine in the U.S.

AAUW is a group that focuses on empowering women and raising awareness of issues impacting women such as health and body image, said Mariah Furtek, a third-year geography student and president of the UCLA chapter of AAUW. Furtek is a Daily Bruin staffer.

Furtek said the goal of the conference was to make female students more comfortable about pursuing careers that may be traditionally male-dominated.

“You can’t be what you can’t see. If you don’t see a role model, it’s very difficult to picture what you want to do,” Furtek said. “If you don’t speak to people who are working in the fields you are interested in, it’s very difficult to prepare for those careers and feel comfortable when you are in those careers.”

During the event, students anonymously asked about Hilliard’s and Rios’ careers and how to navigate situations in their respective fields that are unique to women.

The speakers spoke about handling sexism, being assertive and handling stress from academia.

Hilliard said when she was an undergraduate student, she was confused about what she wanted to pursue. She originally intended to be a lawyer and worked as a paralegal. However, she eventually realized her true calling was to pursue a doctorate in history.

“It’s been an interesting exercise to be able to reflect back on what I have learned and how I have grown and also what I wished I had known when I was going into academia,” Hilliard said.

Hilliard said she faced sexism when doing research abroad as one of the only women in her department.

She said when she gathered materials for her research in the library, male colleagues who passed through would question why she was there. One person in particular did not believe she could carry out her research on her own and frequently patronized her, confidently giving her incorrect instructions on how to complete her work.

However, Hilliard said she stood up for herself and asserted her place as a scholar and fellow colleague. She said this experience was pivotal to her development and helped her to build confidence in her abilities.

Rios said she graduated during the recession and was unemployed for a year after college. She eventually found work focusing in feminist advertising and publicity but realized she wanted an even larger role in activism. She said she wanted to make a difference and bring awareness to issues impacting women that may be overlooked.

This journey led her to her current role as the digital editor of the Ms. magazine.

Grace Hawkins, a third-year sociology student, said this was the first AAUW event she attended and that she would be interested in attending more in the future because she thinks they provide an open space for her to freely express herself.

“Usually when I talk about feminist topics, it’s very heated, so this was a pleasure of a feminist experience for me,” Hawkins said.

She said she learned a lot about entering higher education from the speakers.

“What I learned about graduate school was really insightful for me because I am intending to have my own journey into graduate school,” Hawkins said.

Hilliard said she thinks women should be encouraged to assert themselves and not be afraid to speak up in difficult situations.

“You deserve to have a seat at the table, and that’s what I want women to walk away with,” Hilliard said. “But I also hope they walk away with the knowledge and the approach they should make room at the table for other women.”

USAC Judicial Board votes to keep recent changes to election calendar

Student government candidates will not be disqualified for late paperwork under a Friday judicial board ruling.

Navkaran Gurm, a first-year public affairs and economics student, alleged the Undergraduate Students Association Council Election Board and council itself violated article 13.1.3 of the election code, which states all changes to the election calendar must be proposed by week seven winter quarter. The allegation came Wednesday, after USAC voted to change the election calendar two weeks before voting opens.

The council voted Tuesday to retroactively change the deadline for campaign packets from March 18 to April 1 to accommodate for miscommunications after the election board chair was replaced. Kyana Shajari, USAC election board chair, had announced the change on Facebook mid-March despite never having received official authorization from the council to do so.

Shajari said in an email statement the changes to the election calendar allowed three candidates, who would have been ineligible to run in the spring election, to continue their campaign. Questions about candidate eligibility arose one week after the judicial board initially ruled April 12 that the only official deadline for campaign packets was March 18, as stated in the original election calendar, and that any student who turned in his or her campaign packet after this deadline was ineligible to run.

In Friday’s case, however, the judicial board ultimately ruled in favor of the election board and council, meaning the change to the election calendar remains in effect.

USAC President Claire Fieldman said at the Friday hearing the council changed the calendar to create a formal record of information that was previously disseminated exclusively on Facebook.

Shajari previously said she changed the date and announced the change on Facebook because former election board chair Richard White refused to give her the credentials to the official election board email and social media accounts. Shajari was appointed March 12 to replace White, who was removed from office one week prior to Shajari’s appointment.

Without the accounts, Shajari said she could not collect campaign packets by the official deadline. She added while she never received official permission from the council, she had communicated with council members about the calendar change.

Gurm said he thinks student government election procedures were violated by the Tuesday vote and have also been violated throughout the entire election cycle.

“(USAC) voted to make changes to the election calendar two weeks before elections are about to happen and voting opens,” Gurm said. “I think that’s immoral, unjust and unfair.”

Fieldman said during the hearing the intent of the deadline change was not to make retroactive changes but to codify what council members had already discussed before Shajari announced the change on Facebook.

Gurm said after the hearing he thought the election board should reopen the filing period to allow more students to apply for candidacy. Gurm said he thinks this could help avoid funding a special election in the fall because students could apply to fill the vacant slots on the current election ballot.

There are currently no candidates running for Financial Supports commissioner and for two general representative seats. The vacancies are set to be filled in a fall special election.

“If we can reopen the filing period, there’s plenty of potential candidates that are really interested in running, and if we can have them run right now and get it out in one cycle, I think that’s the logical next step,” Gurm said.

Ryan Ender, the Undergraduate Students Association finance committee chair, said in an email statement a fall special election would cost the election board an additional $6,000, bringing total election costs for the 2019 to 2020 council to $12,000.

Fieldman said although reopening the filing period may potentially help avoid a special election in the fall, doing so would push the current election back by at least one week.

She said reopening the filing period will delay the swearing in of the new council and pose difficulties for the newly appointed council.

“Could reopening the filing period potentially lead to having no special election in the fall?” Fieldman said. “I suppose it could potentially, but is it the most appropriate and the most beneficial course of action to serve the student body and to serve next year’s council? It’s not.”

Report finds out-of-state student recruitment racially, socioeconomically biased

This post was updated April 23 at 5:04 p.m.

Public research universities focus more of their recruitment efforts on out-of-state students, according to a report from UCLA and the University of Arizona.

The study, which was published in March, investigated the recruitment strategies of 15 public research universities nationwide and found decreased state funding has caused universities to focus recruitment efforts on out-of-state students, particularly in wealthy and white communities, in order to increase revenue from out-of-state tuition.

Ozan Jaquette, an assistant professor of higher education at UCLA and one of the authors of the report, said their research found many public research universities made more recruitment visits to out-of-state students. According to the study, 12 out of the 15 universities made more out-of-state recruitment visits than in-state visits, with seven out of 15 making more than twice as many out-of-state visits.

Crystal Han, a graduate student at San Jose State University and one of the authors of the report, served as an undergraduate research assistant on the study when she was a fourth-year biology student at UCLA. Han said the increased number of out-of-state recruitment visits is caused by public research universities’ desire to generate revenue to make up for insufficient state funding.

“The main finding is that universities generally recruit heavily out-of-state and a large part of it was because out-of-state students pay higher tuition,” Han said. “So, a lot of universities rely more heavily on out-of-state (students) to generate higher tuition.”

The University of California’s nonresident enrollment cap could help prevent the UC from fixating too heavily on recruiting out-of-state students, but this fixation persists at many other public research universities, Jaquette said.

UCLA admissions did not respond in time to a request for comment.

Recruitment efforts also tend to be concentrated in wealthy and predominantly white communities, the report found.

“These out-of-state visits were focused on very affluent, predominantly white public schools and private schools,” Jaquette said. “These are the students they’re spending resources trying to get, and it’s contributing to racial and socioeconomic stratification in public flagship universities.”

The research also found that universities make less of an effort to recruit first-generation students, low-income students and black, Latinx and Native American students.

“There are a lot of students, like first-generation Latinx students that got a 4.0, took all the AP classes in their high school and they really did everything they could,” Jaquette said. “They got to their university and they were confronted with these huge cohorts of really wealthy out-of-state students who didn’t take school very seriously because that’s specifically who the universities are targeting.”

Han said public universities’ tendencies to recruit from wealthy, white communities can lead low-income students and students of color to feel more excluded from these schools.

“Students tend to feel more at home when they’re around people who are from similar background aspects, so if they only recruit from really affluent communities or white communities, some students in college might feel more isolated,” Han said.

Karina Salazar, a graduate student at the University of Arizona and one of the authors of the report, said she hopes the research can help policymakers find ways to increase low-income students’ and minority students’ access to public universities.

“We need to start thinking about, rather than changing the behavior of students, how can we get them to narrow the underachievement gap or how can we get to help students get the information they need in order to not undermatch institutions,” Salazar said. “I think a bigger question comes to how do we begin changing enrollment management and enrollment priorities in universities.”

Several students said they noticed UCLA is heavily populated by out-of-state and wealthier students.

Stella Nguyen, a first-year international development studies student, said as an international student from Vietnam, she thinks there are many affluent and out-of-state students at UCLA.

“I’ve met a lot of international students,” Nguyen said. “Most of my roommates are out-of-state as well.”

Elizabeth Gutierrez, a fourth-year political science student, said although the student population at UCLA is diverse, she thinks there are more wealthy students than low-income students.

“I don’t think (UCLA) recruitment focuses on low-income (communities),” Gutierrez said. “I’ve met a lot more wealthy people than I have lower-income (students), and lower-income (students) are usually transfers and had to go to community college first.”

Jaquette says he hopes this research can point out deficiencies in public research universities’ recruitment tactics and show their effects on higher education.

“At a fundamental level what’s happening is that the state is disinvesting in public higher education and then public flagship universities – which were founded to provide high quality education for people who couldn’t afford private, elite colleges – these public institutions are no longer valuing merit, they’re just valuing affluence,” Jaquette said.

SB 50 could help provide students with more affordable housing in Westwood

This post was updated on April 22 at 6:18 p.m.

Westwood is a tale of two cities: The west side boasts a picturesque campus with rolling hills and glowing bricks, all of which create a place for the world’s sharpest minds to flourish. The east side, on the other hand, has little more than ramshackle, unmanaged apartments and pricey “luxury residences” well out of the price range of most college students.

Westwood’s exorbitant rents, which average an extortionate $3,416 per month, can be attributed largely to the neighborhood’s lack of apartment-style housing. Much of the neighboring residential areas consist of single-family homes instead of buildings that can house multiple residences. While this might make for prettier neighborhoods, it creates an ugly housing process for students living off-campus.

State Senate Bill 50 could help change that.

The embattled bill, which will be heard by the state Senate on April 24, would require towns to allow apartment construction within a half-mile of a rail transit station, within a quarter mile of a high-frequency bus stop or within a so-called “job-rich” neighborhood. It’s a reformulated version of last year’s SB 827 and now protects against prior expressed fears, such as gentrification.

Westwood is a neighborhood that meets the bill’s proposed requirements – meaning the housing floodgates in this expensive college town would finally open if the legislation passes.

And it should.

Westwood’s housing crisis derives largely from the city’s lack of options. Because housing is a renter’s market, landlords and property owners in the status quo are able to escalate costs for students on the hunt for a place to live. SB 50 would create more apartment buildings in high-density areas, which for Westwood, would create competition that would drive rents down to affordable rates.

Paavo Monkkonen, an assistant professor of urban planning, said an increase in apartment buildings could drive apartment pricing down.

“Given that there’s already a ton of demand for housing near campus and the prices for the old stock are quite high, if there was competition for new stock then the prices of the old stock might come down,” Monkkonen said.

The opposite scenario is taking place right now: The lack of housing allows property owners to take advantage of students by skyrocketing rents because students don’t have other options they can turn to.

Courtney Kim, a third-year political science student, said she lived on the Hill her first year and opted to live in a Greek-affiliated house for her second, primarily because she couldn’t figure out the ins and outs of the off-campus housing process.

“I’ve never felt like I can choose where I want to live – I more just had to go wherever was available,” Kim said.

Living in Los Angeles’ star-filled neighborhoods requires a millionaire’s budget, but that’s slowly becoming a reality for all the city’s communities.

Nic Riani, a second-year public affairs student, said he feels Westwood is not fully meeting its student housing needs.

“I feel like it’s not affordable for most students to live in Westwood or live close to campus,” Riani said. “There are students that are homeless or, you know, struggling to meet all of their needs, especially given the cost of housing.”

And attempts at affordable housing have seen immense opposition.

Take The Agora, for example, a proposed a 16-story apartment for students on Hilgard Avenue. The Westwood Neighborhood Council voted in opposition to the project, and the homes of the Little Holmby neighborhood have scattered their lawns with “Save Hilgard” signs contesting the housing development.

This kind of opposition is characteristic of city governments too.

The Los Angeles city government officially stated its opposition last week to the bill.

The reason, as most SB 50 critics argue, is that it would take away governing autonomy from the cities to determine how best to handle their housing woes. Zev Yaroslavsky, a former LA City Council member, said the bill’s one-size-fits-all approach will not create affordable housing, and community-specific action would be more effective than a state approach.

“This bill goes way too far; it’s an overly simplistic piece of legislation that will not get the job done,” Yaroslavsky said. “We need to use fewer sledgehammers and more scalpels to get this right.”

While Yaroslavsky’s logic makes sense in theory, the reality is that city-specific efforts have been made in the opposite direction. Rather than creating more affordable housing, LA has instead restricted the areas in which multiple-family housing can be built. A city-centered approach doesn’t help solve the problem students are facing and ignores the urgency of the need for affordable housing.

Moreover, the very problem of the lack of affordable housing has been created in large part by the city government’s actions over the past 40 years to reduce the production of apartments, Monkkonen said. This bill, he said, serves as California’s response.

“I think what a lot of cities are mad about is that the power to control land use and to permit (or block) development is a power that city governments have,” Monkkonen said. “No city government wants to give away its power to the state.”

Yet a bill like SB 50 is exactly what Bruins need. And now is the perfect chance for Westwood, LA and California to give students the east side they deserve – and can afford.

Editorial: UC’s indecision on raising nonresident financial aid creates unclear future

Out of state, out of mind.

That’s what the University of California Board of Regents seems to think when it has to make concrete decisions about nonresident students.

Wobbling has become a norm for the University’s heralds. At last month’s meeting, for example, many came in determined to increase nonresident tuition by $762 to fund the UC. By the end, it voted, against the recommendation of its Finance and Capital Strategies Committee, to table the vote. Their reasoning: To work out a plan for potentially providing need-based financial aid so as to not box out low-income nonresident communities from the University.

Two months later, UC President Janet Napolitano indicated in a meeting with Jamie Kennerk, the Undergraduate Students Association Council external vice president, that if the tuition increase is approved, it would likely come with a reintroduction of financial aid for nonresident students.

Keyword: would.

As nice as Napolitano’s statements sound, they only add to the uncertain future nonresident UC students face. Regents have gone back and forth on important decisions pertaining to out-of-state students’ tuition costs, sometimes in the same year. Right now is no different.

The regents are tasked with being a decision-making body for the University. And they need to decide: Forfeit nonresident financial aid for good or go all-in and create a funding stream to supply such an initiative.

Whatever decision it is they make, the University needs to stick to it.

Attending a UC school doesn’t come cheap for nonresident students, after all. The regents voted to increase their tuition by 3.5% in 2018, racking up the total cost to a whopping average of $42,900 per year. In that same meeting, the Board of Regents discussed if it should bring back out-of-state aid, which it stopped providing in 2016 so as to increase the number of Californian enrollees. The conversation was inconclusive, and nothing came to fruition.

Not much has changed since. The routine is almost rehearsed: The Finance and Capital Strategies Committee recommends a nonresident tuition hike, the larger body debates whether such an increase would hinder international and low-income students from being able to pay for a UC education, Napolitano chimes in with a curt message about the University urgently needing to pass the increase, senior regents rally around the president’s call, and the body deliberates for an unpredictable amount of time.

The result has been delays on tuition hike votes, leaving students unclear about their immediate futures.

Of course, deliberations are necessary for any body – especially one that manages a multibillion-dollar university system – to identify the best course of action. And the regents do indeed have good discussion points in their regular meetings.

But that’s the point: They’re only discussions. The lack of action combined with the otherwise productive discussion over the years makes for a doublespeak that leaves students caught in the crosshairs.

There shouldn’t be ambiguity surrounding the UC’s price tag. Empty promises, after all, don’t pay the bills – and out-of-state students have a lot of them.

Neither do elaborate pro-con lists.