Equating mental and physical illness pressures medication use

Take it from someone who knows: being an all-around anxious person is difficult. Anxiety is exceedingly common among college students and can throw seemingly insurmountable obstacles in the path of success and goal-directed action. Unfortunately, the increasingly dominant one-size-fits-all approach to addressing anxiety on college campuses and beyond is simultaneously close-minded and destructive.

To allow for empathetic and honest dealing with the potentially devastating consequences of anxiety and related problems, defenders of mental health often assert that physical illnesses and mental illnesses are not really different. Both can affect every major body system and can range from mild to fatal. While it is positive that stigma is being called out and mental health is now openly addressed in the media and in our daily lives, simplistic solutions can sometimes do more harm than good.

One such simplistic notion is the belief that anxiety can or even must be treated with medication. In a radically pro-medication paradigm, those who prefer to meditate, undergo deep breathing exercises or simply work on using their personal issues to their own benefit as best they can might be marginalized.

Side effects and other perfectly scientific defenses for not treating anxiety symptoms with pills aside, those college students who choose not to medicate may soon be a minority. According to the Center for Collegiate Mental Health’s annual report—which spans 140 campuses—in 2015, one out of three college students had taken psychiatric medication. Anxiety was listed by the study as the number one primary concern of students receiving treatment.

That there is not a one-size-fits-all solution for anxiety disorders and other mental illnesses does not discount the need for psychiatric research. Still, it seems that if a huge number of college students complain of symptoms like shakiness, jumpiness and a racing heart, there are two possibilities: either just about everyone has a disorder or society’s joint tendencies to pathologize and seek better living through chemistry have led us to stigmatize the very thing so many are working to de-stigmatize.

Upon breaking a bone or contracting a bad flu, the obvious thing to do is to go to the doctor. Doctors are not infallible and medical opinions are often wrong, but the general procedure for those fortunate enough to live with healthcare access in the developed world is to complain of a physical symptom or ailment, get a prescription and take the pills as directed.

Following this same process with respect to anxiety can result in terrible consequences. The complex and often uncomfortable truth is that it can be incredibly difficult to draw a line between what constitutes a “disorder” and what is an integral part of an individual’s personality. I would argue that certain ideas about mental illness and how it should be treated can actually result in the partial or even total erasure of an individual’s personality—particularly when that personality is chemically altered with psychiatric drugs as a matter of course.

In our effort to give anxiety disorders and other mental illnesses legitimacy by treating them like every other illness, we have lost the ability to recognize the important distinctions between the physical and the psychological. Similarly—in ostensibly embracing mental and emotional difference—we have paradoxically lost our ability to tolerate quirks, as what once may have simply qualified as a healthy degree of neuroticism is now labeled as something much more dangerous. Until a certain degree of anxious behavior is recognized as entirely normal and perhaps even desirable, unjust stigmas will persist.

Scalia conspiracies deserve media recognition, not dismissal

The circumstances of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death were suspicious to say the least. By and large, however, mainstream news sources and political pundits alike have branded those who have questioned these circumstances as unhinged conspiracy theorists. But considering the high stakes involved, such questioning is only rational. Scalia was found dead at the age of 79 in his room at Cibolo Creek Ranch in West Texas on Feb. 13. No security detail had accompanied him to the hunting resort. He presumably died of a heart attack, but his body was not autopsied, even though Cibolo Creek Ranch owner John Poindexter reported that Scalia was found with a pillow over his head. More recently, it has come to light that the late justice spent his last hours in the company of members of an ancient, elite secret society of Austrian hunters called the International Order of St. Hubertus.

There is something objectively unique—if not downright fishy—about all of this. The resulting vacancy on the nine-seat court has triggered what many have referred to as a “Constitutional crisis.” The critical tiebreaking seat is at stake and Republican senators are refusing to even hear a new nominee speak as long as President Barack Obama remains in office.

It is not difficult to imagine—hypothetically—why a left-leaning, politically motivated group of individuals would have wanted Scalia or any other right-wing justice dead. Though Republican obstructionism is far from unprecedented, the Senate’s united front is surprising to many and perhaps would not have been foreseen.

The Washington Post attempted to strike down such questions with an article titled “Conspiracy theories swirl around the death of Antonin Scalia” and, days later, another: “The psychology behind why people believe conspiracy theories about Scalia’s death.” Similarly, Raw Story published “Why rational people believe stupid Scalia conspiracy theories” in their science section. For every homemade blog post or YouTube video speculating about whether Scalia may have been killed, there is a bluntly dismissive mainstream media article denouncing such tin foil hat theorizing.

The problem with these lines of attack against the would-be conspiracy theorists is that the burden of proof does not lie with the casual reader of the news. As a curious person, I am not responsible for coming up with a cogent theory of what really happened to Scalia. He very well may have died of natural causes, but—given the aftermath of his death as well as the strange events that preceded this death—I feel that someone in a position to offer more than mere conjecture should be investigating and asking the questions that many so-called conspiracy theorists have been asking.

There is certainly a truth, but that does not mean that it fits into the mainstream media narrative of this or any other given event. Whether for political reasons, money reasons or out of pure laziness, the media—most of which is owned by six major conglomerates—sometimes offers something other than fact or something less than the whole truth. When this happens, labeling anyone who would call journalistic ethics into question as a paranoid, basement-dwelling conspiracy theorist or—even lower on the moral totem pole—a contrarian Internet troll becomes more or less necessary to maintain legitimacy.

As much as I would prefer to believe that there was no foul play involved in Scalia’s death, I cannot help but wonder about other possibilities. It will always be easy for journalists and politicians to dismiss critical thinkers as conspiracy theorists. What is difficult is asking questions, considering alternate explanations, doing research and getting comfortable with a certain degree of uncertainty.

Condemning pesticides does not undo existing damage

The Food and Drug Administration recently announced that it would begin testing for glyphosate. The chemical is commonly known as Roundup and is global agribusiness giant Monsanto’s pesticide of choice.

Considering that the World Health Organization declared glyphosate a probable carcinogen in March 2015, this is good news. It would be much better news, however, if it had come earlier—and better still if the obviously dangerous, experimental chemical and others like it had never been distributed on such a massive scale in the first place.

Even if one holds that the process of genetic modification itself is not radically different from traditional genetic farming techniques, there is nothing traditional about the chemicals that accompany most GM foods. Chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides are certainly not intended for human consumption, but we humans inadvertently consume them all the time. We simply can’t avoid them; they stick to food, seep into groundwater and drain into rivers and oceans. 

Additionally, the vast swathes of genetically modified corn, soy and wheat fields that have all but consumed the American Midwest are decidedly unnatural, as well as entirely experimental. The manufactured chemicals and associated lack of biodiversity quickly deplete the soil in these regions, leading to desertification and difficult farming years. Monocultures are also much more susceptible to diseases and die-outs; the Irish Potato Famine is just one unfortunate and highly relevant historical example.

Experiments like the Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial—which has maintained side-by-side high-tech chemical and low-tech organic farms since 1981—have repeatedly disproven the myths perpetuated by agribusiness companies. These trials demonstrate that although factory farms may produce high yields in their first few years, they begin to underperform once they begin to wear out the land.

As pests and weeds become increasingly resistant to older chemicals, these agrichemical farms require more and more new chemical “solutions.” This means that GM foods may actually be much less likely to “feed the world” than organically farmed foods, regardless of what Monsanto’s website says. The fact that world hunger is a problem of distribution rather than sufficient food production does not help the company’s case.

Clearly, the safety of genetically modified foods is far from established. Regardless of what the FDA determines based on its chemical testing of glyphosate, the problems associated with agrochemical agriculture neither begin nor end with a single pesticide.

The upshot is that a lot of individuals, state governments and federal governments alike have recently taken action regarding Monsanto’s bad business practices. Several states sued the company in 2015 for allegedly knowing but failing to disclose the cancer risk associated with glyphosate. Mexico is also suing the company and agribusiness giant DuPont/Pioneer for various damages.

This kind of public pressure is most likely the real reason why the FDA finally decided to begin testing for glyphosate. Of course, there is no need to wait for the FDA to run their tests and mandate a switch from Roundup to some other, very likely just as dangerous chemical.

As consumers, we have the power to take our health into our own hands. In the face of carcinogenic and unsustainable GM operations, we can instead choose organic, locally-sourced foods. Meanwhile, as citizens, we can and should speak out against dangerous, monopolistic corporate practices whenever possible.

Two-party system detrimental to American political progress

We need to talk about partisan politics in America. More specifically, we need to talk about how the current two-party system undermines any chance a given candidate has at offering a unique vision for the country—or even a position on a single issue that is not “business as usual.”

In a prime example of partisan groupthink at work, the six remaining candidates for the Republican nomination are desperately attempting to “out-conservative” each other, as they did at their rowdy ninth debate in South Carolina on Saturday Feb. 13. Sen. Ted Cruz accused Donald Trump of being “a liberal” for not denouncing Planned Parenthood and for praising former President George W. Bush’s handling of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent Iraq War. In addition, virtually every candidate paid homage to former President Ronald Reagan at least once.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie—who ended his campaign after a sad sixth place finish in the New Hampshire Primary on Feb. 9—was once a strong contender with bipartisan appeal. He too was forced to join the GOP hive mind, however, after his notorious “Bridgegate” scandal robbed him of credibility on both sides of the aisle.

Instead of embracing Democrats and Republicans alike—as he was once known to do—Christie abandoned his more moderate ideals during his bid for the nomination. Unfortunately for him, however, his rebirth as a true conservative did not square with his brash, “tell it like it is” persona. Before suspending his campaign, Christie’s most significant act was to embarrass Sen. Marco Rubio who, in all his short-circuiting, line-repeating glory revealed that he is the ultimate establishment lap dog.

For his part, Rubio, too, has upped the ante recently on his rabid conservatism. In a thinly veiled attempt to prove that he is not a robot, he has become an impassioned, undiscriminating defender of all people and things Republican, effectively blaming the World Trade Center attacks on former President Bill Clinton.

On the Democratic side, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has continued to demonstrate that she will say anything to win. She has attempted to style herself as a “true progressive,” most recently allowing avowed socialist and surprise threat Sen. Bernie Sanders to push her to the left on Social Security expansion. In the past, Clinton has flip-flopped on marriage equality, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and much more—all to stay in line with what is in vogue according to the loudest voices in the Democratic Party.

Of course, these extreme party-embracing tactics are simply clever shows for the primary season. Party nominees’ ultimate strategy of moving to the center for the general election in order to appeal to independents and swing voters is equally dishonest.

The practice of changing one’s views to match a given group or demographic is insulting to the Americans who simply do not fit into a box—who I optimistically imagine to be most of them. These party politicians do not represent real values—Constitutional or personal. They simply represent carefully rehearsed talking points, as Rubio has reminded us.

The old adage “never trust a politician” is probably true, especially when considering that other old adage: “power corrupts.” The current two-party system rewards doublespeak and punishes consistency. Only when voters begin choosing politicians based on their own unique values—as opposed to how well they can conform to a broken party system—will we have a chance for an honest election cycle. As it stands now, there are only two very specific possibilities: the list of progressive values and the list of conservative values.

These all-or-nothing value catalogs ultimately lack nuance, diversity and pragmatism. Moreover, they fail to accurately represent the values of independent-minded constituents. It will take brave individuals who step outside precisely drawn party lines to bring more organic, truthful ideas to the White House—both on the side of the voters and the politicians.

Political correctness hinders learning in college courses

During the first class of the semester, professor and chair of philosophy Theodore Everett distributed a syllabus for PHIL 235: Philosophy of Biology containing a “Free Speech” clause. The clause begins with the sentence, “There is no political correctness in any of my courses.” I find this attitude refreshing after spending nearly four years in an academic environment that is increasingly hostile toward First Amendment rights and open-minded conversation. I believe that every syllabus in every course at Geneseo should contain the same clause.

Everett is no stranger to controversial stances on campus politics. He has given several hotly debated talks, including one titled “Against ‘Sexual’ ‘Assault’ ‘Awareness’” in April 2013. In the three courses I have taken with him, Everett has consistently challenged his students to think critically—even when doing so requires leaving one’s comfort zone. He also makes his fair share of politically incorrect jokes. While I do not necessarily agree with everything he says, I fervently support his ability and willingness to say it.

The only possible way to genuinely convince another that your side is the correct one is to have a true debate. Whether the debate is between a realist and a nominalist in a philosophy course or a liberal and a conservative in a political science course, the principle remains the same: Anything less than an unrestrictive, rational discourse eliminates the possibility of objectivity in the classroom. This diminished potential for intellectual honesty is perhaps even more apparent when it is the professor who self-censors in an attempt to not offend anyone—or even to pander.

Increasingly, however, many students at Geneseo and other colleges seem to believe that unrestricted free speech poses some kind of urgent threat. In reality, the opposite is true. Opening the door to censorship and tiptoeing around sensitive issues prevents citizens—including students and faculty—from engaging in open, honest and intellectually challenging conversations about the issues that matter most.

Students who are consistently rewarded for hypersensitivity to difficult issues will inevitably be ill-equipped for the job market and the world at large. Outside of liberal college campuses, few places are safe from a wide spectrum of potentially offensive personal and political ideas.

Instead of preparing students to hold their own in conversation with those they may find to be prejudiced or ill-informed, however, policies and professors who shield students from uncomfortable ideas ultimately assist in the stunted growth of students’ persuasive powers. These well-meaning restrictions do not prevent the pain that comes with being marginalized and maligned or even just losing an argument. To the contrary, they only delay the inevitable and contribute to a virtual epidemic of 22-year-old college graduates who are emotionally and intellectually incapable of engaging in a rational disagreement.

Instead of preparing students to think critically when confronted with conflicting or self-contradictory ideas and to sometimes reconsider their own deeply held beliefs, these policies teach students to freeze up, get upset or simply stick their fingers in their ears in the face of cognitive dissonance.

Hopefully, there will always be educators like Everett who value critical thinking and rational disagreement over hollow, one-sided political correctness. Once students can learn to engage with uncomfortable ideas on campus, they will be prepared to tackle these same ideas in the world outside the college bubble.

Quilting exhibit features nontraditional, intricate aspects of artistic medium

The Bertha V.B. Lederer Gallery held a reception for its first exhibit of the spring semester “Quilt: Traditional/Not Traditional” on Wednesday Feb. 3. The exhibit features quilts made from a variety of materials including fabric, paper, plastic and metal wire. According to Director of Galleries Cynthia Hawkins, the variety of media used in these quilts is exactly what she expected to see in the submissions for the exhibit.

“That’s why it’s called nontraditional,” Hawkins said. “We have unusual material that’s used like traditional cotton … and some are traditional cotton, but the patterning is entirely unexpected.”

“Quilt: Traditional/Not Traditional” features both invited and juried artists. According to the Geneseo website, it’s the school’s first quilt exhibition in eight years.

Professor of geography Irina “Ren” Vasiliev has some experience of her own with nontraditional quilting. “I’m a geography professor and a cartographer but I’m also an artist and I do sort of this kind of stuff,” Vasiliev said. “I have what’s considered nontraditional quilt maps hanging in my office that I made … and this is a nice collection of nontraditional quilts.”

Gallery coordinator senior Britina Cheng noted that she also prefers the nontraditional pieces. “I think the nontraditional quilts are often just a little bit more engaging,” Cheng said. “And the found objects ones with the plastic woven in—I can’t imagine the process they went through just to do it. I imagine the material might have been really flimsy to work with, or just not as sturdy as cloth and that it would be a really tedious job.”

While helping Hawkins to set up the exhibit, Cheng added that she was particularly cautious with Scott Andresen’s fragile, paper-thin found material quilts.

“When I was working with them, I felt I had to be careful … because I was like, ‘How do they put this together?’” she said. “It’s brown paper. What if I rip this? It might just ruin the entire integrity of the piece.”

Several of Allentown, Pa.-based artist Kathy Bachofer’s quilts are also on display. “I’m a programmer, but this is more my passion,” Bachofer said. “I hit 35 and I said, ‘It’s time to go back to school and do what I want to do.’”

Bachofer’s “Abstracted Eucalyptus” is a traditionally stitched quilt, while “Fragmented Structure 2” involved a digital printing process.

“[‘Fragmented structure 2’] was actually a log cabin quilt I made about 10 years ago,” she said. “I put it into Photoshop, just digitally manipulated it and I printed it out … and quilted it.”

Another found object artist—Rebecca Mushtare—used plastic bags and embroidery to send a message about consumer habits in her “Consumption” series. These provocative found object quilts look like paintings from a distance, but the stitching is revealed up close. A sign at the bottom of the particularly direct “Consumption Portrait #5 (Dialogue)” reads, “RECYCLE.”

“[Mushtare] is using [quilting] like a drawing, kind of a narrative,” Hawkins said. “It’s borderline abstract but it has figures in it.”

By contrast, the quilts of Jill Odegaard—who trained Bachofer while she attended Cedar Crest College in Allentown—resemble sculptures almost as they do traditional quilts.

“Even though Jill [Odegaard] is using a weaving method, it’s actually fabric sewn over wire,” Hawkins said. “So that you can mold it so that it has a three-dimensionality.”

In particular, Odegaard’s three-dimensional “Spaces Between” sets a new standard for artistic quilting.

“The way it plays with shadows in the background, it kind of gives it multiple layers with the way the light hits it,” Bachofer said. “There’s just such a depth here, just visually. Where does the quilt end? Does it just continue onto the wall? Is that just another layer?”

While many may view a quilt as a comforting blanket for winter nights, the quilters featured in “Quilt: Traditional/Not Traditional” bring a surprising amount of depth and variety to their art.

“I think that’s what I try to get to in most exhibits is the variety and how nuanced an idea about a certain medium is and how many forms it can take,” Hawkins said.

Bar-Eat-O opens on Bank Street

Bar-Eat-O opened its doors to the public on Jan. 12 and will have its grand opening sometime in the next couple of weeks. The Mexican restaurant and bar is located at 3 Bank St., the former location of the Vital Spot sports bar. The building underwent an extensive renovation beginning in summer 2015. According to district manager Jason Singer, the reception has been “fantastic.” He sees the restaurant as a potential gathering place for Geneseo students and village residents.

“We want to be a blend where locals can come in and college kids can come in,” Singer said. “I don’t think there’s that tie-in place yet. We want to be that tie-in place … and the food is the driving force. I mean, we do have a bar but it’s not the focus of the concept. The focus is the healthy, all-from-scratch Mexican food.”

Because Bar-Eat-O has not yet “officially” opened, the hours are still flexible, though the bar has been opening until about 9 p.m. Monday-Wednesday, 10 p.m. on Thursdays and 11 p.m.–12 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays.

“Before we do our grand opening, we want to have Facebook set up, the web set up and all the hours of what our operations are,” Singer said. “We’re not even answering the phones to take phone orders yet, so we’re still in our honeymoon, feeling-out stage.”

Previous Vital Spot owners and brothers Luke and Paul Develder now own Bar-Eat-O. The Develders also run Ember Woodfire Grill in Livonia and fast casual pizzeria Pi Craft, which has locations in Henrietta and Tonawanda.

“The bar kind of got neglected,” Singer said. “[The Develders] were running their other endeavors and it was some time before the bar grew up with them … and now we have a highchair. Who would have thought the Vital Spot would have a highchair?”

In contrast to the Vital Spot, Singer described Bar-Eat-O as a restaurant first, similar to Chipotle or Moe’s Southwest Grill.

“Our meats are braised in-house with no fillers,” he said. “We grill our barbacoa and our pork for six hours in the restaurant, so we’re not getting things out of a bag and just heating [them].”

He added that a variety of menu items can be made vegetarian, vegan or gluten-free. “Being a vegan or whatever your options are, you shouldn’t have to eat just garbage or Ramen noodles every day because that’s your only option,” he said.

Singer also emphasized the importance of affordability. “We don’t want to out-price ourselves,” he said. “We want to be a place people can afford to come to multiple times a week.”

According to Singer, everything on the menu is under $8.

“I had a bowl with rice and beans. I thought it was really good,” senior Layna Gray said. “The service was quick.”

Gray added that Bar-Eat-O is a “start of the night” kind of bar.

“I think people would appreciate it if the bar was open later, but I understand wanting to be more of a restaurant than a bar,” she said. “I feel like more people are going to go there for dinner and a drink than an end of the night thing.”

Singer made a similar point. “Our goal is to be the first place you come up, not the last place you go out,” he said. “The music we play is not too loud or club-y and there’s no dartboard.”

He emphasized that the bar will check every ID.

“This bar has always been a late night bar and it’s just not what we’re doing anymore,” Singer added. “Let other places have that fun endeavor and we’re going to focus more on the food and the happy hour crowd.”

Chipotle scandal echoes larger health issues within food industry

News of a recent lawsuit accusing Chipotle of attempting to cover up a foodborne illness outbreak has left me feeling skeptical. The new-kid Mexican chain has been one-upping established fast-food royalty for a while, making every effort to make its food fast and fresh. After the announcement that genetically modified ingredients were officially off the menu in April 2015, Chipotle had a bit of a target on its back. Whether or not there was any sabotage on the part of fast-food industry backers or fans of the biotech industry—as several independent websites and environmental activists have claimed—the outbreaks present an important opportunity to make American fast food both safer and more sustainable.

According to Food Safety News, roughly 500 individuals were sickened by the food they ate at Chipotle from July–December 2015. Multiple strains of E. coli and norovirus were responsible for the six different outbreaks that occurred across numerous states in that six-month period. Those who favor the sabotage explanation have emphasized that some of the E. coli bacteria are of a “rare genetic strain,” insinuating that they may have originated from a lab.

The outbreak contributed to legal troubles, plummeting stocks and a veritable publicity nightmare for the chain. Additionally, Chipotle pledged to close the doors of every store for several hours on Feb. 8 to educate employees on proper safety techniques.

In reality, the 500 individuals who reported getting sick from Chipotle in 2015 represent an unfortunate but tiny fraction of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s estimated 48 million Americans who contract foodborne illnesses each year. The problem lies not with non-GMO, organic or locally grown food, but with the growth-hungry fast-food model. This model favors reckless expansion over careful curation of ingredients.

Virtually every industrialized livestock operation is a haven for bacteria. It makes sense: cram a plethora of cows into very tight quarters instead of letting them roam free, feed them grain instead of grass and the result is E. coli. These sick, suffering animals are then fed enormous amounts of antibiotics to keep them “healthy” and growth hormones to fatten them up as much as possible in their shortened lifespans.

Similarly, mass-produced genetically modified crops are sprayed with various pesticides to keep away insects and diseases while forming a layer of industrial chemicals unfit for consumption on most non-organic produce. The existence of these numerous biochemical solutions explains why—from time to time—consumers’ risk of getting a given disease from industrially farmed food may be lower. That does not mean this food is actually healthier, however.

            Fast-food can result in the spread of more foodborne illness because of the speed of preparation required in the restaurant itself. Pressure to serve as many customers in as little time as possible can result in fewer changed gloves or washed knives, leading to the cross-contamination of meat and produce.

Chipotle announced that it would shift to preparing and packing more food in central kitchens—just like its fast food competitors. This represents a giving-in to pressure—and to the irrational idea that, somehow, freshly prepared, largely chemical-free produce could be worse for customers’ health than washed out, assembly-line-style lettuce and tomatoes. This is an unfortunate step backward for the chain and I hope this trend does not continue.

Hopefully, the Chipotle scandal does not discourage other restaurants from moving toward providing fresher, less environmentally destructive food in the future. If their methods for fostering the development of more small-scale, slowed-down, ethical farms force them to also be somewhat smaller and slower than what Americans are used to, then so be it.

Found artist traces origins of trash; transforms waste into craft

Sometimes, art exists for its own sake, but art can also be activism. For Jenny Odell, it’s the latter. Odell creates found art from garbage by tracing the history of each piece and archiving it. In a culture of overwhelming wastefulness, the artistically inclined and their audiences could do a lot of good by swimming against the current. Odell’s art fuses similar creative expressions with activist awareness.

Odell’s Bureau of Suspended Objects project represents an extensively researched archive of material culture—the full dossier of the gallery of objects is a lengthy book. The artist collected and categorized discarded computers, dolls, videocassettes, toys, tennis rackets, backpacks, bottles and clocks. The statement is clear: the past—and the things that characterized it—doesn’t disappear just because trends have changed and people have moved on; it’s still there, collecting dust.

Odell is not the only waste-conscious found object artist out there. She created the Bureau of Suspended Objects through a program at Recology, an employee-owned trash collector in San Francisco whose motto is “a world without waste.” According to its website, the company has been hosting artists in residence for 25 years.

By teaming up with artists who give a new purpose to other peoples’ trash, Recology acknowledges that the process of recycling and disposing of discarded items—no matter how efficient or green it may be—is nowhere near enough to address the problem of just how much waste Americans make. Sometimes, a little more creativity is necessary to address the problem.

I have always been fascinated by found art. Sometimes, it’s just because it’s unexpected. Sometimes, garbage just looks cool when it’s spray-painted bronze and arranged to look like a flower or a person—or even just a pile of spray-painted garbage.

I think a lot of it has to do with the idea that garbage isn’t always just that and it doesn’t always belong in a landfill. Oftentimes, it ends up there because people just missed the recycling bin. Sometimes people throw out new and useful objects because they didn’t like their color.

Sometimes, garbage belongs in a museum because it is actually art. There’s a political message inherent to that statement. When that message gets lost, it represents a missed opportunity.

Found object art is a prime opportunity to spread messages about the problems of rampant consumerism and environmental destruction. When the art itself is renewable, a message of sustainability should not be too hard to tease out—either for viewers or for the artists themselves.

Of course, activism and creative expression cannot always go hand in hand; that would put a limit on creativity, which is never a good thing. When your art just happens to come from the trash, however, spreading awareness about where those objects came from and why it’s considered “trash” in the first place may be warranted.

Hopefully, more artists in the future will embrace and actively share messages of sustainability and conscious consumption—whether their medium is garbage or oil on canvas. Meanwhile, those of us with less lofty creative aspirations could stand to pay more attention to the “reuse” in “reduce, reuse, recycle.” Once it leaves our hands, our garbage isn’t going to an artist in residency; it’s just going to sit in a landfill.

SUNY institutes mandatory survey

Beginning in January 2016, Geneseo will require students to submit or opt out of a new SUNY student information survey in order to access KnightWeb. The survey is being implemented across the SUNY system and will ask students demographic questions regarding sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, employment status, first generation status and physical and mental disabilities. According to a page on the Geneseo website, “Geneseo campus decision makers, including all teaching faculty, administrators, deans and department chairs, will not have access to this data. This information will not be associated with students’ academic record and will not be available via normal channels in our student information systems. Students will be able to review their responses and make any needed changes for each fall and spring semester.”

Director of Institutional Research Julie Rao explained that while certain demographic information can be extrapolated from the Free Application for Federal Student Aid or the Common Application, not all SUNY students fill out these forms.

“SUNY has been looking at diversity for a while,” Rao said. “When they tried to sit down and systematically look at the data that they had, they realized there were gaps when it came to their knowledge about certain groups.”

According to Rao, some information included in the survey—particularly sexual orientation and gender identity—may be too sensitive to ask on application forms. “If a student wasn’t out to their parents, we wouldn’t want to have that on the application where they might have their parents over their shoulder,” Rao said.

According to a Sept. 30 memo to SUNY campus presidents from SUNY Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Alexander Cartwright, the survey results will be transferred by computer to SUNY System Administration in Albany. Access to the survey results will be restricted and the information will be stored on secure servers.

“They will also have protocols in place so that nobody in Albany is going back and looking at an individual student’s data,” Rao said. “It’s all about collecting it in the aggregate and then looking at those outcomes to know, ‘What’s the size of a population? Do we need to have more services in place? Are we serving them adequately? Are they graduating at the same rates?’”

While Geneseo faculty and staff will not receive information about individual students’ responses, they will receive the breakdown of results in percentages. “Just like SUNY, we’re interested in knowing, ‘How many students do we have out there that we might need to be serving better?’” Rao said.

Rao added that while recent events on college campuses across the nation may have inspired more awareness of diversity, the survey has been in process in the SUNY system for about two years.

“We first heard about this the end of July,” she said. “So while it might seem that it’s a reaction to many of the things that have been going on—especially at the University of Missouri—this is something that’s been on SUNY’s mind for much longer than that.”

Moving forward, the survey will be distributed each semester because, according to Rao, “some of these things can change, especially with sexual orientation and even gender identity as students grow during this very pivotal time in their lives.”

Though SUNY initially wanted Geneseo to administer the survey during Advance Registration, Rao saw that as potentially “interfering” during an already stressful time. Subsequently, Institutional Research decided to administer the survey at the end of the fall semester. In this case, completion would have been required for students to access their course grades.

“We had originally thought about doing it once the SOFIs were done, but then it puts a barrier to students getting their grades during finals week,” she said. “And again, why do we want to do something that’s going to aggravate students during an already stressful time?”

According to Rao, though students must complete the survey to access KnightWeb for spring 2016 registration in January, they can either choose not to answer individual questions or opt out at the end of the survey, deleting any responses they may have given.

Sophomore Miranda Steinberg said she believes students will answer the survey questions to the best of their ability. “I think we go to a super liberal and open-minded school and people are willing to be honest about taboo things,” she said.

Sophomore Andrea Bourdelais shared Steinberg’s sentiment. “I think if it’s anonymous, then people will answer it correctly,” Bourdelais said. “If no one’s going to find out, there are no repercussions and it’s just between you and a computer, why wouldn’t you be honest?”

Rao expressed hopes for a similar outcome. “I hope students take the time to do it, take it seriously and fill it out with honesty,” she said.

GEO, Facilities respond to recycling contamination issues

Facilities Services removed the majority of the recycling bins in Milne Library due to cross-contamination between Oct. 8–Oct. 14. Members of Geneseo Environmental Organization are now working alongside the Office of Sustainability to educate the campus on proper recycling in an attempt to get the bins replaced. GEO began tabling in Milne on Oct. 26 and will continue to do so through Friday Nov. 6. The table includes information regarding correct recycling methods and there is also a short survey that students can take online.

“Basically, we want to find out how everyone else thinks we could help the campus recycle better,” GEO member sophomore Samantha Martin said. “So we want people’s feedback—so why do you think people don’t recycle? How do you think we could help recycling happen better and more often?”

According to Geneseo’s website, Geneseo has recycling guidelines in place that apply to items including paper and plastic as well as computers and other electronics. These guidelines are not always followed, however.

Coordinator of Residential Education and Co-Chair of the Sustainability Commission Meg Reitz expressed her belief that this is a campus-wide problem—particularly in residence halls like Jones Hall where there is a lack of recycling bins.

“My guess is that in a lot of the residence halls—at some point in the past few years—facilities got annoyed that the [recycling bins] were being contaminated continuously and thought, ‘Well, never mind. We’ll just take them out … and we can count it all as trash and not have to worry about it,’” Reitz said. “And I know that in lots of dorm rooms there is just a recycling bin and no trash can and people just throw everything in there.”

According to Head Custodial Supervisor of Academic Buildings Laura Canfield, however, Milne is the main problem with the vast majority of bins being contaminated “on a daily basis.” This comes largely with food and drink from Books & Bytes.

“In Milne specifically, it happened because that was where we were having our main issues with trash being mixed in with the recycling stream,” Canfield said. “A lot of times, we would have coffee and sodas and food trash mixed in with our paper and plastics. For a while, our custodians were trying to salvage what they could but when half the bag is contaminated with sticky liquid, it was fruitless to continue to use our time to do that.”

GEO president senior Julia Mizutani has spearheaded her organization’s involvement in campus recycling initiatives.

“Once we figured out that issue, that’s when we talked to the library and talked to facilities about how to ameliorate the situation,” Mizutani said. “Because clearly just taking away recycling bins isn’t going to make recycling better—or possible.”

Interns at the Office of Sustainability have also been trying to educate students on proper recycling techniques by making signs illustrating which objects can be recycled and how.

“It would be nice if things were structured better where these things were already happening fluidly and Facilities was taking care of this … but at the same time, it is not their responsibility to check on students and make sure they are recycling,” Mizutani said. “That’s not their job; their job is just to pick it up.”

According to Canfield, “Facilities will remove anything that’s put in the appropriate recycling container.”

Though the “bottom line” for Mizutani and GEO is getting students and faculty to place recyclables and trash in their respective bins, composite materials as well as the presence of food can complicate this.

“People are putting paper plates and paper cups in the paper recycling, which sounds right—that sounds intuitive,” Mizutani said. “But actually, we’re trying to help people understand that those are contaminated—first of all—with food, but second, paper plates and paper cups have a waxy layer on top and those can’t be separated from the paper.”

“We found out, actually, that the people who really want to recycle are kind of the problem because they’re trying to recycle everything like their paper plates and their cups, but those actually can’t be recycled if there’s any remnants of food,” Martin added.

Canfield emphasized that it only takes one item to contaminate an entire bin. “A soda or an iced coffee or something like that … it goes all the way through and then the whole unit is contaminated. And not only do we have to throw away all the paper that’s in there, but we also have to take the time to clean the receptacle and make sure everything is ready for use again,” she said.

She added that there were about 50 paper recycling containers in Milne. “When you have a staff of three trying to maintain a building that’s open so many hours during the day, to take the time during those hours, to pull out contaminants is not a very good use of their labor hours,” she said.

After GEO’s two weeks of tabling are over, Mizutani expects that Facilities will begin monitoring the situation beginning on Monday Nov. 9 and replace the bins if they see an improvement.

Canfield said she was open to a trial period. “I’m kind of taking direction from the sustainability office as far as how they would like to proceed,” Canfield said. “We would like total participation.”

Reitz noted that she is hopeful that the bins will be replaced in Milne. “There are concrete steps,” she said. “Students know where to go, know what venues to reach out to; to make those sort of structural administrative changes in the college and there’s communication between the facilities and the students.”

Mizutani explained that she is still concerned, however. “I don’t know what will happen. It’s kind of scary actually,” she said. “I’m hoping we can prove that students can step up and change things through education and then Facilities will—in the future—be more optimistic about things changing for the better.”