Critics misinterpret Kendrick Lamar’s politically significant music

View fullsize

Hip-hop artist Kendrick Lamar performs at Coachella on Sunday April 16. Lamar’s music seeks to address racism and to empower listeners to evoke change. (Amy Harris/AP Photo)

Fox reporter Geraldo Rivera said in a video on Pitchfork that musician Kendrick Lamar was “indoctrinating young people” with his music by sending a message that police officers are the enemy and violence is the answer to fighting racism.

In reference to Lamar, Rivera also said, “hip-hop has done more damage to young African-Americans than racism in recent years.” 

These accusations make a large generalization, claiming all rap and hip-hop music embodies this attitude. Rap, as a genre, features a range of topics and attitudes, allowing several types of artists to express themselves in varying ways. 

Rivera is completely misinterpreting the point of Lamar’s music, which has a very complex and hyper-aware message. Lamar’s recent albums—To Pimp a Butterfly and DAMN.—aim to address racism, oppression and violence, questioning where the blame should be placed when it comes to the history of black individuals in America. 

These albums challenge everyone—even Lamar himself—to consider their part in the oppression of black individuals and how we can move forward. In many of his songs, Lamar discusses the idea of inner conflict, even going so far as to call himself the “biggest hypocrite of 2015,” in his song “The Blacker The Berry.” 

This self-questioning clarifies that Lamar does not see himself as the authoritative figure on this subject, and others shouldn’t either; he is just an artist trying to make sense of the complicated world around him.

Rivera’s attack on a black hip-hop artist creating a conversation about important issues is unacceptable. Based on Rivera’s comments, it is clear that they were motivated by Lamar’s race and the ideology behind his music.

“It’s the worst role model, it’s the worst example, it’s the most negative possible message,” Rivera said.

Rivera also claims that, “The real danger to young black men and real brown men now is that their role model will sing about cops being killers and the system being stacked.”

While Lamar’s music is often blunt and unfiltered, that is exactly why it is politically charged and boundary-breaking. The oppression of minorities—particularly black individuals in America—is so deeply inherent in our society. Lamar shedding light on this is imperative. 

Lamar aims to inspire a young black generation, specifically, but also aspires to inform listeners of all ages, races and backgrounds with his music.

Contrary to Rivera’s claims, Lamar has proved to be an incredible role model for fans. Lamar speaks about prioritizing education in high schools; he visits fans, encourages young people to pursue their dreams and performs extensive charity work, according to MTV. 

Lamar recently fought back against Rivera’s comments and featured sound bites of him on his recent album DAMN., causing the controversial comments to resurface. Addressing the negative comments in his music speaks clearly about the message that he is trying to convey.

Anyone who claims that hip-hop music and rappers are “damaging” young black individuals is not only ignorant, but also ridiculous. Instead of criticizing an art form, we should be challenging the deeply engrained racism and oppression in our society that the music is trying to address.

Young children need exposure to LGBTQ+ education, tolerance

Geneseo does a decent job of providing opportunities for students to educate themselves regarding LGBTQ+ issues. Higher education and the media allow college-aged students who have the desire to learn about the important differences between concepts such as gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation to do so. 

Unfortunately, because transgender issues have only recently been brought to the public eye in more accepting and understanding ways, many elementary or grade schools fail to represent trans culture and individuals in their education systems.

College students can educate themselves outside of the classroom by accessing various types of media. Shows such as Amazon’s “Transparent,” books such as Becoming Nicole: The Transformation of an American Family and celebrities such as Laverne Cox speak out to help inform teenage students and older individuals about the fight for transgender rights.

New types of formal education regarding transgender rights have been popular with specific courses and trainings—such as SafeZone Training—and are becoming more widely available. Further, college students can understand the importance of using the pronouns a person is comfortable with and what it means to be a transgender man, a transgender woman or intersex. 

The ability to discuss these complex and confusing concepts in both formal and informal environments allows students to make mistakes and to learn from them. This is what education is all about: expanding our knowledge on certain subjects so that we can continue to foster an inclusive environment for all individuals.

The lack of LGBTQ+ education for young children’s public education, however, was recently brought to light through the banning of a book called Jacob’s New Dress in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School system in North Carolina. 

Tami Fitzgerald, the executive director of coalition for the school, according to The New York Times, said the book was, “meant as a tool of indoctrination to normalize transgender behavior,” and that “a lot of parents would object to that.”

“We believe the purpose of first grade is to teach writing, reading and math and not to teach boys to wear dresses,” Fitzgerald said.

These comments are not only insensitive and offensive, but they also highlight the exact reason why this book is necessary in childhood education. Jacob’s New Dress was supposed to “help students recognize harassment and bullying and teach them what to do if it happens,” Charlotte-Mecklenburg School superintendent Ann Clark said, according to The New York Times. 

The lack of education regarding transgender individuals at a young age could be detrimental to continuing to create a safe place for all individuals. Teaching children the importance of acceptance and inclusiveness is imperative—especially when it comes to transgender individuals. 

What kids learn now in school will affect the way they grow up and act for the rest of their lives.

It is not only important to make transgender children—and all children—feel accepted and loved, but for all individuals, regardless of their age, to be educated about the different kinds of individuals that make up the world. 

Especially in the early stages of education, it is imperative for children to understand that their differences aren’t something to be ashamed of—they are something to be proud of.

Public reaction to Kardashian West robbery insensitive, lacking empathy

View fullsize

Kim Kardashian West was robbed in Paris in October 2016. The insensitive reaction on social media to Kardashian West’s life being threatened highlights the public’s unwarranted lack of compassion. (Lionel Cironneau/AP Photo)

Reality star Kim Kardashian West was robbed at gunpoint during her stay in Paris in October 2016. Due to Kardashian West’s celebrity status, the public reacted strongly to the news of her robbery.

Social media erupted with the news and many individuals took a stance of cynicism.  Rumors circulated that the incident had been a publicity stunt, while others claimed that Kardashian West had brought the robbery upon herself by choosing to lead a lavish lifestyle and constantly creating a social media presence. 

Some reactions to the robbery on Twitter included: “I’m surprised Kim Kardashian didn’t snapchat the whole robbery thing,” and “This looks like another Kardashian ploy, PR stunt.”

Similar to the backlash Kardashian West received after being robbed, her husband, musician Kanye West, was criticized for leaving mid-performance at The Meadows musical festival in New York City after receiving word of his wife’s situation. 

Twitter responded in an insensitive way, saying, “Still mad Kim got robbed during Kanye’s performance,” and “Kanye has to cut his #themeadowsnyc set short due to a family emergency and someone screams ‘THIS IS SO KANYE.’” 

This popular reaction to Kardashian West’s robbery is completely insensitive and highlights the way society dehumanizes celebrities. The way celebrities’ lives are used as a source of entertainment causes individuals to not take them seriously and to question if their existence is authentic—as is especially true of the Kardashian family.    

Individuals did not consider the facts of the events that transpired in Paris, just simply that they happened to a celebrity. 

Kardashian West begged for her life, saying, “Don’t kill me, I have babies, don’t kill me, please, I have babies! I’m a mom! Take whatever you want!” She also said that one of her attackers “tied me up and put plastic cables and Scotch tape on my hands, and then taped my mouth and my legs." 

If these quotes and headlines were written about a non-celebrity    civilian, the public would have reacted differently; this violent robbery in Paris would have been called a tragedy instead of a publicity stunt or a long-time-coming wake-up call. 

Regardless of who this happened to, the fact that an innocent mother of two was begging for her life at gunpoint and was unsure if she would see her husband or kids again is heartbreaking.

The inappropriate and insensitive public reaction to Kardashian West’s robbery is due solely to her role as a public-figure. It should be unacceptable to joke about or make light of any incident of violence. It is disappointing that many feel celebrities aren’t deserving of our empathy.

After the incident in Paris, Kardashian West stayed off social media and only recently spoke publicly about the issue. Recently, on her show “Keeping Up with the Kardashians,” she got emotional with her sisters about the robbery. 

She later tweeted, “I took a tragic horrific experience and did not let it diminish me, rather grew and evolved and allowed the experience to teach me.” 

It is imperative to gain perspective when it comes to reacting to the life of celebrities. While their lives and what happens in them seems foreign to us, they are still real people with families and loved ones.  

The jokes and cynicism that followed Kardashian West’s robbery were unacceptable and causes concern. The ability to show empathy and love for those who are struggling is an inherently human trait, and it is distressing that this wasn’t shown to Kardashian West.

Nike Pro Hijab line supports inclusivity for Muslim athletes

View fullsize

Figure skater Zahra Lari wearing the new Nike Pro Hijab. The release of the Nike athletic wear allows female Muslim athletes to perform comfortably and fosters inclusivity in sports. (Courtesy of AP Photo)

Nike Inc., a popular athletic wear brand, recently addressed an industry-wide problem that many people did not even know existed. The sportswear previously produced and sold by the Nike brand, and many others, did not provide options for female Muslim athletes who wear hijabs.

“In an upcoming line of workout clothes for women, Nike is introducing a performance hijab to better serve Muslim female athletes—the Nike Pro Hijab, which is scheduled for release next year,” USA Today reported.

As a leading brand for both recreational and professional athletes, Nike is long overdue in setting this standard, but such action is commendable nonetheless. Many Muslim athletes struggle to compete and to perform due to the lack of athletic clothing available that accommodates their religious beliefs and practices. 

Nike claims that this product release was “the result of an ongoing cultural shift that has seen more women than ever embracing sport,” according to USA Today. They explained that the “movement first permeated international consciousness in 2012, when a hijab runner took the global stage in London.”

Professional Muslim athletes—specifically runner Sarah Attar and weightlifter Amna Al Haddad—inspired the product.

In addition, The New York Times reports that many Muslim athletes—such as figure skater Zahra Lari and runner Manal Rostom—tested Nike’s hijab throughout the stages of the product’s development. Furthermore, after the launch of the Nike Pro Hijab many Muslim professional athletes have stepped forward and expressed their support. 

Nike did a tremendous job in teaming up with athletes who were affected by the lack of diverse athletic clothing. This collaboration not only allowed Nike to make a political statement, but also ensured that the company’s clothing products were as accommodating and successful as possible.

While Nike launching the Pro Hijab is a positive step for gender and athletic equality, its delayed arrival is disappointing. The struggle of Muslim female athletes was not given the attention it deserved over the past few years, as highlighted by the product’s elongated timeline.

It is difficult for some individuals to imagine something as seemingly meaningless as athletic clothing as an important issue, but that’s exactly why Nike needed to make a statement. Muslim women have been discriminated on multiple fronts and offering the proper athletic clothing for these women will finally allow them to fully participate in the sports they love. 

To many, engaging in athletic activities in high school gym classes, on sports teams and with friends has been second nature, but this has not been the case for some female Muslims. Nike’s product will not only benefit professional athletes, but it will also benefit women and girls across the world who wish to participate in sports while wearing a hijab.

Despite Nike’s forward-thinking attitude and desire to accommodate all athletes, the brand has faced harsh criticism after the Pro Hijab’s release. The Independent reports that social media posts highlight criticism of the brand, while customers claim that they will never purchase Nike products again; some suggesting that Nike is supporting the oppression of women through selling the Pro Hijab.  

“It is a recent phenomenon where more women have expressed a need for it and more professional athletes have fought for rights to compete with a headscarf, and have an equal playing field,” Haddad responded in light of this disapproval. “We made it big in the news; we couldn’t be ignored.”

Nike’s action to represent female Muslim athletes will give attention to the many issues these individuals face. Nike has a major influence in not only the athletic industry, but also in the world, as their products are widely sold and represented. The launch of the Nike Pro Hijab is a major step in creating a safe and equal place for all individuals to practice sports and to perform at the professional level.u

Serious, rampant sex trafficking crimes occur close to home

An alarming issue that normally escapes the public eye was recently brought to main-stream attention by celebrity and actor Ashton Kutcher. Kutcher spoke “before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a hearing on progress in combating modern slavery,” according to CNN.

Modern slavery is defined as “the act of recruiting, harboring, transporting, providing or obtaining a person for compelled labor or commercial sex acts through the use of force, fraud or coercion,” according to the United States Department of State. The U.S. Department of State also explains that the term “modern slavery” can be used interchangeably with “trafficking in persons” and “human trafficking.” 

This wasn’t Kutcher’s first time speaking out about this issue; in 2009 he and his ex-wife Demi Moore founded Thorn: Digital Defenders of Children. This organization is dedicated to building software to combat human trafficking, according to CNN. Kutcher made clear that technology is one of the most important tools in the fight against modern slavery and gave specific updates on how effective Thorn’s current efforts are.

Kutcher’s responsibility as a chairperson of Thorn, and as a father, is to dedicate his time and passion to the cause of human trafficking, according to Kutcher. While speaking about his involvement, he said, “I’ve seen video content of a child that’s the same age as mine being raped by an American man that was a sex tourist in Cambodia.”

Since this child was conditioned to her environment, according to Kutcher, she felt like “she was engaging in play.” 

Kutcher’s speech was moving and educated, as he called for, “specific actions, including additional funding for the technology, fostering public-private sector relationships, looking into the pipeline for victims … and differentiating solutions sets for sex trafficking and labor trafficking with enforcement and legislation initiatives.” 

Kutcher’s celebrity status and work with Thorn is bringing modern slavery, an extremely important issue—especially considering the refugee crisis—to the forefront of our politics.

While all social issues deserve attention, sex slavery is an issue that is close to home for us here at Geneseo, although many individuals are unaware of this. The danger in modern slavery is not only in its existence, but also in its ability to remain deemed “unimportant.”

USA Today reports that in 2014 a “western New York man was arrested in July, the allegations were salacious and attracted national media attention: sexual slavery, kidnapping and claims of gang involvement.” 

Further, in 2015 a Mt. Morris man had been “arraigned on new charges stemming from alleged sex crimes, in which he is accused of holding a woman prisoner and using her as a sex slave,” according to 13 WHAM News. 

While sex slavery is committed all over the world, Geneseo students should be aware that it is happening in towns and counties right next to them. Kutcher brought this to light with his speech on Capitol Hill and in his call for activism.   

 March 14 is the perfect opportunity to get involved, as it is #MyFreedomDay—a day dedicated to students joining the fight against modern slavery, raising awareness and celebrating freedom. Hopefully this campaign, coupled with Kutcher’s activism, will bring modern slavery the public attention it deserves.

American Girl’s first male doll challenges harmful gender stereotypes

The popular children’s toy brand American Girl recently stirred up some attention with the release of their first male doll—named Logan Everett—on Feb. 16. While the introduction of a male doll into the brand’s products may not seem like groundbreaking news to some, this will have a profound effect on children. 

The American Girl brand is committed to, as stated on their website, “[celebrating] girls and all that they can be. That's why we develop products and experiences that help girls grow up in a wholesome way, while encouraging them to enjoy girlhood through fun and enchanting play.”

American Girl is committed to not only creating dolls, but also to educating young individuals about different cultures, ethnicities and time periods. They do so by including a book with each doll that tells that specific doll’s story. These books serve to foster inclusion and acceptance of all individuals at a young age.

“When the line was introduced in 1986, it became a huge hit for its historically accurate clothing and furniture, and stories told through the doll’s eyes of escaping slavery or living through the depression,” The New York Times said.  

Since then, American Girl has introduced more contemporary dolls; they still aim, however, to help their customers learn something with each new doll. 

The brand represents a range of races, economic statuses, cultures, professions and, now, genders. 

The introduction of a male doll is just another way American Girl is fostering inclusion in their brand. It is imperative that this continues so that future generations of children have the choice to play with dolls, trucks or blocks—no matter what their gender is.

Having more gender-neutral toys will allow children to explore interests that they enjoy and to express their true selves.

Further, American Girl is encouraging all children to learn about inspiring young women through their literature. They are suggesting that their dolls’ stories should not be limited to young girls; it is important for all children, in general, to learn about those different from themselves.

American Girl, however, has not received universal positive feedback. Reverend Keith Ogden claims that the release of the male doll is, “nothing more than a trick of the enemy to (emasculate little boys) and confuse their role to become men,” according to The Washington Post. 

These types of attitudes and gender binaries limit the youth of this nation and create a dangerous political atmosphere for generations to come. 

Although Ogden is not alone in his distaste for the new American Girl doll and in redefining the toy industry to be more tolerant and accepting, it is important to hear their concerns—their words remind us that not only is the creation of Logan Everett as a male doll commendable, but also necessary because of the negative opinions it brought out.

Future generations of children deserve to play with toys that they like—not toys that they are prescribed to use based on their gender. Any steps taken toward creating a safe place for children to explore themselves and to have fun should be celebrated.

Relay for Life hosted by dedicated, trustworthy charity organization

View fullsize

Geneseo hosts the American Cancer Society’s Relay for Life every spring semester. The ACS often receives undeserved accusations of not using donations for charity purposes. The organization, however, is honest and transparent about its budget and functions. (Jake Wade/Staff Photographer)

The American Cancer Society was created in 1913, and today—in 2017—is still one of the most well-known charities internationally. The American Cancer Society, however, continues to be insulted as a non-profit organization despite their amazing work and financial transparency. 

Individuals often become hostile or angry when asserting their negative opinions regarding the ACS; this type of attitude is not only lacking factual evidence, but is also largely inconsiderate. Bashing an organization that has no ulterior motive—that is dedicated to helping people and to eradicating a horrific disease—seems counterproductive and pointless.

One in three people with cancer will die within a year of diagnosis, according to MacMillan Research—meaning a large ratio of people in our country know someone who has died of cancer. It seems deliberately disrespectful to openly speak negatively about a non-profit organization that is trying to combat a horrific disease that affects many people. 

Although insulting the ACS is intended to call into question the organization itself, it personally offends those who have had cancer or who have watched a loved one battle with the disease. Throwing insults at the ACS demeans cancer patients’ struggles as well as an organization that has saved lives for over 100 years.

Further, the claims made by those who discredit the ACS are invalid. The main argument made is that “not all money goes to cancer research,” which is correct—but not in the way critics mean.

 The ACS’s mission is to “save lives, celebrate lives and lead the fight for a world without cancer.” The scope of their charity does not just cover research and finding a cure to cancer—it also focuses on survivor outreach, cancer prevention and general population education.

The ACS is extremely transparent when it comes to where they spend their money. They published on their website that in 2015, $151 million was spent on cancer research, $348 million was spent on patient support, $123 million was spent on prevention information and education programs and $87 million was spent on cancer detection and treatment programs. 

While, clearly, not all this money is used for research grants, the ACS does this intentionally to embody a well-rounded non-profit goal. 

Here, the Geneseo Colleges Against Cancer student organization plans Relay for Life and receives much of the same criticism. This is disappointing, as Relay for Life not only raises money for cancer, but it also helps to create a supportive campus community. The Relay for Life event on campus provides hope for students struggling with a cancer-related issue and reminds us all to count our blessings.

In addition, Geneseo’s Relay for Life dictates exactly where the money raised goes within the ACS. The goal for this year’s event is $180,000, which is $5,000 higher than 2016.

If this money is raised, it will be divided accordingly: $90,000 for one research grant, $36,500 to provide cancer patients 365 overnight accommodations during treatment at the Hope Lodge, $50,000 to purchase 200 wigs for cancer patients and $3,500 to provide 350 rides for cancer patients to and from treatment.

It is always important to question where donation money goes and to remain educated; individuals should never stop researching and holding charities to a high standard. 

It does seem, however, that those who speak up are unaware of the financial transparency and different cancer initiatives that Relay for Life and the ACS provide.

Sexual assault in TV should be portrayed responsibly

It is imperative that society holds television shows and films accountable for the way they—as influential media outlets—portray sex. The way that sex is portrayed in mainstream media can, and will, affect the way young women view themselves and the way they believe they should be treated in sexual scenarios.

While it is important that media content depicts a healthy sex life to its audience, it can also be helpful to highlight the opposite. This can only be effective, however, if the content is clearly and skillfully created with the intention of making individuals aware that certain behaviors are unacceptable.

This issue was recently brought to the public eye when the HBO series “Girls,” starring Lena Dunham, received criticism for a sex scene featured in the ninth episode of the second season. In one scene, Adam Driver’s character forcibly has sex with his new girlfriend, played by guest star Shiri Appleby, after she clearly says, “No.”

Joe Flint of the Los Angeles Times said that the episode was, “graphic even for those fans used to seeing creator and star Lena Dunham's no-holds-barred approach to story-telling.” Further, he said that it was a “jarring end to a violent and hard-to-watch scene. Even theatrical movies with sexually explicit material and adult pay-per-view channels typically steer clear of such displays.”

The violent sex scene played without warning to viewers, which could have been a trigger for any sexual assault and rape victims who were watching. In addition, the show failed to acknowledge the gravity of the situation and did not discuss why the character’s actions were not only unacceptable, but also criminal.

In the process of the “Girls” creators defending this scene, their responses made the situation worse and highlighted their ignorance. “Girls” executive producer Jenni Konner responded to criticism of the scene by saying, “To me, that was a fully consensual bummer of a sex scene.” 

In addition, Dunham commented on accusations that the scene portrayed rape and said, "Oh, I've been raped, and that's not what it feels like … That scene was very much based on an interaction I had with someone whom I continued to feel very loving feelings toward for a long time after that, because human sexuality is so complicated."

Not only are Konner and Dunham’s responses insulting on many fronts, but they are also blatantly ignorant of what makes sex consensual. Dunham also manages to pigeonhole all experiences of sexual assault to the way she felt, ignoring the fact that every individual responds to traumatic experiences differently. 

The way “Girls” handled the portrayal of a sexual encounter—as well as the creator’s response to a scene that clearly depicts sexual assault—is unacceptable. If the media continue to be lenient when clarifying issues of consent, it will affect the way society views these things as well. 

It is important that individuals understand that the type of sex portrayed in that scene is unacceptable. The fact that “Girls” is unwilling to own up to this makes the need for a higher media standard even more immediate.

Sexist journalism persists within coverage of women’s rights march

There has been no shortage of inspirational journalism regarding the Women’s March on Washington on Jan. 21. Along with quality writing, however, there are some insulting and detrimental pieces—specifically “How Vital Are Women? This Town Found Out as They Left to March” in The New York Times. 

The Jan. 22 article focuses on Montclair, New Jersey, where women of the town joined the March on Washington. Eventually, residents of Montclair realized how important women were to their daily lives. 

The first paragraph of the highly-criticized article points out that on the day of the women’s march many women were absent from Montclair. The article’s author, Filip Bondy, makes references to how empty the town’s Starbucks and yoga studio were—places that are stereotypically labeled as feminine. This opening to the piece is shallow and plays into female stereotypes, which is consistent with the remainder of the article. 

Bondy’s piece seems to present irrelevant information and comes off as blatantly ignorant. The article is offensive on many fronts: to the Women’s March, to women in general and lastly to men who are parents.

The media buzz surrounding the women’s rights movement has not only been instrumental to its success but also serves as a tribute to those who have been a constant support. To have an article such as Bondy’s published in The New York Times almost seems to satirize the march and demean its importance. 

The headline itself suggests that the only outcome of the women’s march was that these specific men in this town realized that women were somewhat useful. In such a charged political atmosphere, this type of journalism seems wasteful and regressive.

Further, the article basically reduces a woman’s role to being a mother. While motherhood is an honorable and important role to many women, it is impossible that each woman in Montclair that attended the march identifies only as a mother. There were surely female doctors, lawyers, teachers and business owners that attended the march. 

The article, however, barely mentions this. Bondy narrowly focuses on the way the women’s husbands were affected by their decision to march, instead of how their decision could affect their own futures as women in the United States.

Lastly, while this article mostly infuriated women, men are also represented poorly. Bondy paints the picture that when the women left to march, the men were stranded to helplessly complete trivial housework tasks. For example, Bondy quotes a Montclair father saying, “Doing everything by myself all day long is not typical.” 

The article also outlines the tasks that the fathers had to deal with such as, “children’s birthday parties, dance performances, swimming lessons and lacrosse and indoor soccer practices. Growling stomachs required filling on a regular basis.” Here, Bondy not only insinuates that the men did not formerly appreciate their wives, but are also utterly incapable of parenting alone—thus fulfilling yet another gender stereotype. 

The Women’s March was intended to be empowering, and Bondy’s article completely misses the mark. Journalism such as this is sexist, misogynistic mockery and cannot be tolerated during a time when the news can be so instrumental to a cause. 

While it is easy to dismiss this article as being undeserving of our time, it is imperative to refute its claim and to use it to fuel the fight against the sexism that pervades our society.

Michelle Obama remains model for aspiring women politicians

Michelle Obama resiliently served as First Lady of the United States for eight years, despite being doubted, underappreciated and criticized by public opinion. As the first black woman to hold the position, she destroyed the notion that being the First Lady simply means being the president’s wife. 

As a new presidential administration begins, it is imperative to acknowledge Obama as the woman who has evoked positive change and who selflessly dedicated her life to this nation over the past eight years.

Obama—praised for her humor, fashion sense and maternal instincts—offered so much more to American society and politics. As a Princeton graduate and former lawyer, the intelligence and determination that she exhibited before taking office cannot go unnoticed. Further, Obama’s commendable ambition only strengthened when she took office. 

The First Lady was not daunted by the job at hand, but fearlessly took current social issues, such as poverty, healthy living and education head on, according to the Biography.com editors’ “Michelle Obama Biography.”

While Obama’s accomplishments were often overshadowed, she remained focused and consistent when it came to her objectives. Some of the First Lady’s major feats include the launch of the Let’s Move! Child Care to address childhood obesity, as well as the National School Lunch Program to provide lunches to more than 21 million low-income children. 

Additionally, Obama created the Reach Higher Initiative to inspire children to complete education past high school, hosted a dinner at the White House to encourage young girls to close the gender gap and helped launch Joining Forces to encourage support for veterans and service members.

“Unfortunately, there are gender lenses when you look at women who have political ambition,” Republican pollster Christine Matthews said in The New York Times. “The American public doesn’t want that in a First Lady. They want someone nice and relatable.” 

Obama refused to believe this statement, however, as she spearheaded policy and hard-pressing issues right alongside her husband. This fearlessness and ambition, though, is presumably why Obama faced brutal criticism during her time as First Lady. 

The torment she received was rarely focused on; instead, it was about her gender and race. According to CNN, the First Lady was called an “ape in heels” as well as “monkey face” by a Colorado doctor, per Huffington Post. Despite this—and many other insults hurled at her—Obama constantly stood tall and encouraged others who were being persecuted to do the same. 

This strength and commitment to acting as a role model for younger generations is what made Obama not only an exceptional First Lady, but an exceptional individual.

Obama was referred to as “the closer” by The New York Times during her husband’s campaign because she was a captivating speaker and because she could persuade voters. Obama’s final speech as First Lady on Jan. 6 can attest that her ability to captivate an audience remains.

“All the young people in this room and those who are watching, know that this country belongs to you—to all of you, from every background and walk of life,” Obama said. 

It is a message like this one that needs to be communicated; this type of verbal inclusion, particularly from such a prominent political figure, can make a significant difference in a young life.

Uber should follow service requirements for future safety

U ber Technologies Inc. is an online transportation company based in the United States. While Uber provides users with an extremely convenient and widely used app, their unethical business practices and less-than-impressive legal track record have recently been called into question.

The company is involved in a case against them in the European Court of Justice, which will determine how the company can operate in nations in the European Union. The company has “come under attack from established taxi companies and some EU countries because it is not bound by strict local licensing and safety rules which apply to most of its competitors,” according to Fortune.

Uber claims to be a digital platform, as opposed to a transportation service, which allows them to wrongfully cut corners in terms of legal and safety requirements. Many Europeans––particularly taxi drivers and other transportation companies––oppose Uber taking advantage of the European legal system’s current inability to regulate apps such as theirs.

U.S. Legal defines a transportation service provider as “any party, person, agent or carrier that provides freight or passage transportation and related services to an agency.” Although Uber claims that it simply connects customers and drivers through their app, they should be held to the legal standards of a transportation service.

The reason for Uber resisting this title is because as a transportation service, they will no longer be able to avoid stricter rules on licensing, insurance and safety, according to Fortune. This does not seem like a valid or logical reason for a company to be able to function outside of this realm of legislation, especially since Uber currently provides rides to individuals in over 400 cities worldwide, according to CNN.

In terms of transportation, an individual’s safety and security when getting in a car with a stranger is more important than a company’s desire to cut corners and increase profit margins. Although many customers turn a blind-eye to the company’s disregard for legal compliance due to Uber’s ability to provide a cheap service, this is exactly why they must be held responsible.

Since Uber can easily hire and vet drivers, they are able to offer lower prices, which often puts local taxi services at a disadvantage. It seems that the only way to even this playing field is for Uber to be viewed legally as a transportation service, which will allow for the industry to encompass online and traditional transportation services alike.

In addition, Uber is no stranger to court cases, with CNN reporting that as of August of 2016, Uber had over 70 pending federal lawsuits and a multitude of others in state courts. A number of these cases were related to “complaints against Uber drivers over assault, rape and car accidents,” according to CNN. Uber’s background checking policy and their level of responsibility for contractors have also been questioned in court.

It seems unlikely that a company that has failed to comply to the ethical and legal standards that are imposed upon their competitors—and that have been questioned numerous times in court—deserves to expand their services before bettering their current ones.

Although the importance of a growing e-commerce industry in Europe is significant, an app-based service should not beat out competitors simply by reaping the benefits of the lack of legal requirements for their type of company.

Uber is undoubtedly a useful app; the decision by the European Court of Justice, however, should hold them to the same standard as other European transportation services. This court case outcome is extremely important, as it will certainly affect other emerging digital platforms and the way they are observed on a legal level.

Small Business Saturday crucial for local economies

M any Americans shop excessively the day after Thanksgiving, signifying the unofficial start of the commercial holiday season. Black Friday welcomes millions of Americans to shopping malls, discount outlets and high-end storefronts in search of seasonal sales each year.

Black Friday does not allow all types of business owners to reap the benefits of holiday-crazed shoppers, however. It is mainly large corporations who reap the profit because they can afford to offer the most enticing sales to consumers.

In an effort to promote small retailers and merchants often left in the dust of major companies during the holiday shopping season, American Express created Small Business Saturday in 2009. American Express offers free marketing materials and countless other resources to small businesses during this time in order to make sure that they gain as many benefits out of Small Business Saturday as possible.

Small Business Saturday is majorly overlooked in the shopping-heavy weekend following Thanksgiving, yet its importance is undeniable. Small businesses hope for an influx of customers during the holiday season; unlike larger corporations, the small businesses solely depend on the community they are located in for support.

Making a conscious decision to “shop small” during the holiday season is an effort that should be made by all consumers. Purchases mean much more—both emotionally and financially—to small business owners, as opposed to large corporations.

Forbes contributor Nicole Leinbach-Reyhle in 2015 referred to Small Business Saturday as “one of the most important shopping days of the year.” She went on to cite the increase in success for the relatively new tradition, with 2014 figures indicating that  “88 million consumers shopped small on Small Business Saturday, up 14.9 percent from 2013, spending $14.3 billion at local and independent businesses.”

Although Small Business Saturday has gained popularity over the years, it is still necessary for more people to get involved and to shop small––not only on this designated date, but throughout the rest of the holiday season and year.

In Livingston County, it is imperative that Geneseo students and faculty support local businesses. Small businesses help to make our communities special, and here in Geneseo, they create a unique and beloved atmosphere for college students and residents alike.

In addition to getting some great holiday gifts in Livingston County, there are also countless other benefits to shopping small. According to the Small Business Administration, big businesses have eliminated 4 million jobs since 1990, while small businesses added 8 million. This is not only important on a national scale; it reminds those of us living in Livingston County of how many local businesses provide invaluable employment for Geneseo students and residents. Essentially, the success of small businesses in Livingston County directly correlates to the way our campus operates and how our student life prospers.

There are a multitude of cultural, economic and ethical reasons why shopping small is important. Small Business Saturday is a necessary reminder of them, as we must be mindful of how our decisions as consumers are meaningful.

Even though Small Business Saturday has passed, I urge everyone to continue to support local businesses not only during this holiday season, but year-round, too.

Newly elected women signify progressive future

The 2016 United States presidential election has left many Americans discouraged and uncertain about the future of our country.

Leading up to the election, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was anticipated to hold office and to become our first female president. Although Clinton was not elected, the public perception of the election’s results has been wrongly focused on the magnitude of her loss, instead of the victories of other inspirational women who were elected to political positions.

We cannot allow our disappointment in the presidential election to consume our vision of democracy and taint the way we perceive the progress of women in politics. Although Americans will not see Clinton as our champion in the Oval Office in the upcoming four years, we can look to other places in our government in order to find women who will represent women in politics.

While arguably warranted, the cynicism surrounding the 2016 election has consequently overshadowed monumental political victories that have occurred. Many women and minorities were elected to the House of Representatives and the Senate, showcasing that America’s democracy is capable of prevailing and denouncing the lack of diversity it was once defined by.

Catherine Cortez Masto was elected as the first Latina senator and Tammy Duckworth as the second Asian-American, the first Thai-American and the first female decorate war veteran to serve as a senator.

Furthermore, Kamala Harrish is the first Indian-American senator and Pramila Jayapal is the first Indian-American woman to be elected to the House. Stephanie Murphy is the first Vietnamese-American woman to be elected to Congress, Kate Brown is the first openly LGBTQ+ governor and Ilhan Omar was elected as the first Somali-American Muslim female legislator.

Due to these specific women’s perseverance and their refusal to abide by traditional political and societal demographics, many young girls and minorities can now look to the Senate and the House to see strong, female politicians who represent them. This is especially important considering the current political climate fostering aggressive sexism.

It is essential that we, as a country, re-direct our pessimism following the results of the election. Instead, the country should focus its energy on celebrating the elected women who have made significant progressive strides in breaking the political glass ceiling. In a time when so many Americans are worried for their futures, all we can do is look into the ways that we have progressed and the ways that we can continue to do so.

A century ago, women didn’t have the right to vote. As a woman in 2016, I look to our government to see how far our country has come in terms of gender equality. Although there are countless more reforms that still need to be achieved and there are indisputable struggles ahead for our nation, taking the time to celebrate the positive aspects of the 2016 election is imperative.

CoverGirl inspires beauty industry to consider model representation

Popular cosmetic brand CoverGirl is commendably encouraging the makeup industry to embrace diversity in their advertising campaigns. This change in perspective has been in high demand and the fact that societal norms of conventional beauty are finally being questioned is a huge victory. The makeup industry continuously lacks variety in the brand ambassadors that represent their products. A study by design firm Canva––reported by Refinery29––claims that when viewing makeup advertisements, consumers will see a “slew of almost-identical portraits that display similar hair colors, skin tones, and even facial structures.” Most of those portraits are that of white, celebrity women.

Although many may argue that this issue is not important, the lack of equal representation in the makeup industry has widespread effects.

Having only white, affluent women represent makeup brands can lead many young people to suffer from self-esteem issues. The models currently used by many brands create an unattainable level of perfection due to their celebrity status. Furthermore, there is a massive misrepresentation of consumers; people buying the products are highly diverse in age, race, economic status and gender.

Recently, however, the makeup industry has been making changes. “Instead of prescribing a one-look-fits-all approach, our favorite companies are reconsidering what it means to be truly inclusive in the beauty space,” Teen Vogue writer Sarah Wu said.

CoverGirl has effectively modified their brand’s advertising in hopes to change the way mainstream cosmetic companies are perceived. Their advertisements—and the models in them—are becoming increasingly representative of different groups of people.

For instance, the brand recently introduced their “So Lashy” mascara as part of a new “#LashEquality” campaign, which features a variety of brand ambassadors that differ from the usual white, conventionally attractive representatives. The hashtag “#LashEquality” is also being used to encourage the appreciation for all types of unconventional beauty within the industry.

The brand ambassadors for this specific campaign include celebrities such as Sofia Vergara and Katy Perry, but also some progressive additions. Arguably the most notable of these is 17-year-old high school senior and YouTube makeup artist James Charles.

The New York Times commented on the decision to utilize a male ambassador. “The selection of Mr. James by CoverGirl comes amid a broader questioning of traditional gender boundaries in fashion and beauty,” New York Times writer Valeriya Safronova said.

The makeup industry has previously ignored their male following and typically focused marketing on a female-only audience, therefore creating an unwelcoming environment for makeup-loving men within society. As a CoverGirl, Charles will now be a role model for males everywhere.

Another commendable addition to the CoverGirl ambassador team is Muslim beauty blogger Nura Afia. Afia said that she used to believe her hijab would hold her back because she rarely saw herself represented in advertisements, according to CNN. With her new role, however, Afia is optimistic about the positive effects that her representation as a minority will have.

“It means that little girls that grew up like me have something to look up to,” she said.

The inclusion of both Charles and Afia in the CoverGirl brand is an incredible step forward in the beauty industry. The publicity surrounding these models will allow many consumers to find worthy role models and to redefine their standards for beauty.

Other cosmetic brands should follow CoverGirl’s lead and continue to foster inclusion by showcasing a variety of models. In general, the industry has been corrupt for so long, profiting off the insecurities of individuals in creating unachievable beauty standards—this needs to come to an end.

With CoverGirl’s efforts, we can only hope that, one day, every young boy and girl can look up at a cosmetic billboard or makeup advertisement to see someone that represents them personally.

Pipeline arrests bring attention to indigenous culture, civil rights

Actress Shailene Woodley and 26 other Dakota Access Pipeline protesters were arrested on Oct. 10. Woodley’s arrest—which occurred on Indigenous Peoples’ Day—received mass media coverage and consequently informed people about the situation in North Dakota. Woodley inspirationally used her platform to advocate for the Native American protestors who the media continuously ignore.

Woodley protested the completion of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which—if completed—would carry oil from North Dakota to Illinois. The protestors resist the construction because “the $3.7 billion pipeline threatens the region’s water supply and would harm sacred cultural lands and tribal burial grounds,” according to The New York Times.

Woodley expressed her concerns about the environmental factors of the Dakota Access Pipeline in her Time Magazine essay “The Truth About My Arrest,” stating, “If we don’t begin taking genuine steps to protect our precious resources … we will not have a healthy or thriving planet to pass on to future generations.” Consequently, she is also challenging deep-seated cultural issues through her advocacy.

Woodley has condemned the media’s obsession with her arrest simply because of her celebrity status and white privilege. “It took me, a white non-native woman being arrested … to bring this cause to many people’s attention,” Woodley wrote.

Many celebrities use their fame to advocate for certain causes they are passionate about, which is usually effective. What sets Woodley apart, however, is her condemnation of the way her particular arrest gained mass media attention while many Native American protesters are arrested daily without coverage.

Twenty-six other North Dakota protestors were arrested on the same day as Woodley, yet none of the multitude of headlines contained their names or their stories. This is exactly what Woodley is trying to explain to us: our culture purposefully and ignorantly refuses to equate the validity of Native American culture with that of our own.

Regardless of the importance of the Dakota Access Pipeline construction being stopped, Woodley proved that there are even more ingrained social biases at play here that are causing the issue to be overlooked.

Woodley denounced the way many Americans see Native American culture as fashionable or decorative and the way Americans do not respect the culture. Ethnic biases in the United States are evident in the Dakota Access Pipeline issue; as a nation, many of us overlook the environmental and cultural consequences of the pipeline’s construction because it does not directly affect us.

Woodley calls for action in creating her essay. “What if we used [my arrest] as a catalyst for a full societal shift in the way we start thinking and treating and learning from indigenous peoples? So that in the future, it doesn’t require a non-native celebrity to bring attention to the cause,” Woodley wrote.

The passion, environmental consciousness and ethnical inclusion shown by Woodley should serve as an inspiration to us all. Hopefully, the publicity surrounding Woodley’s arrest—although unjust in and of itself—will encourage Americans to learn about the environmental effects of the Dakota Access Pipeline and genuinely reevaluate the way Native American people are valued in modern culture.

Criticism of pink-washing undermines successful charities

Every October, businesses and organizations across the United States show their support for National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Geneseo Colleges Against Cancer supported the cause by coordinating “The Breast Week Ever” in the MacVittie College Union the week of Oct. 17. In addition, many students attended the Making Strides of Rochester walk on Oct. 16, which raised over $294,000 for the American Cancer Society.

Despite the general widespread success of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, however, many are brutally critical of its nature. The arguments made are not only extremely insensitive to the millions of people whose lives have been affected or lost by breast cancer, but also many times hold little factual value.

Article and blog headlines such as “I hate Breast Cancer ‘Awareness’ Month” and “Why breast cancer awareness month is bullshit” show how people are missing the entire point.

The main criticism is that Breast Cancer Awareness Month is simply a marketing ploy to sell more “pink” products by large companies who participate––most notably nonprofit Susan G. Komen of For the Cure. In fact, in her Huffington Post article “Why I Am Anti-Komen,” Lara Huffman writes that breast cancer is a “pink elephant on a rampage, mowing down innocents in the street” and she claims she was “assaulted by crap with pink ribbons” throughout October.

Due to the widespread popularity of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, some consumers like Huffman have become irritated by the noticeable amount of pink shown because of the event. In her Jezebel article “Breast Cancer Is A Disease, Not A Marketing Opportunity,” Kate Harding writes, “It looks like a four-year-old interior decorator named Emily got a contract to do the whole country. It's a little much.”

This complaint made by Harding and many others seems to be self-centered and egotistical. The fact that the excess of pink products bothers you during the month of October seems irrelevant if you look at the startling statistics from BreastCancer.org—for instance, that one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime.

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers and can be treated if detected early. This is why the obvious goal of Breast Cancer Awareness Month is the most important: to make people more aware.

The excessive publicity that breast cancer receives in October due to businesses creating pink products aids in the spreading of awareness that can save lives. The American Cancer Society works to educate men and women on the signs and symptoms of breast cancer, to provide instructions on how to perform self-examinations and also to promote the use of mammograms.

While I encourage consumers to be educated on where their money is going when they purchase breast cancer-related products, criticisms of a cancer awareness month should not be based on your frustrations with personal consumerism.

One of the goals of the American Cancer Society is to “help raise funds for groundbreaking breast cancer research … and critical patient services.”  This is an extremely commendable cause, and the money raised by official events such as the Making Strides walks can change lives.

As someone who has had a relative suffer from breast cancer, it is absolutely devastating to hear people nit-pick something that has helped so many people. Breast Cancer Awareness Month provides an opportunity for those battling the disease to feel the support of others, for survivors to acknowledge their feats and for everyone to join and fight an awful disease.

Although Breast Cancer Awareness Month is often over-sensationalized, this is the entire purpose of the event. Getting the word out about breast cancer, early detection and prevention is imperative. The success of Breast Cancer Awareness Month and its positive influence cannot be understated.

During this time, I encourage everyone to focus on the true meaning of Breast Cancer Awareness Month and refrain from allowing negativity to diminish both the struggle and accomplishments of past, current and future survivors.

Changing room bill supports modern parenting lifestyles

Although his time in the White House is coming to an end, President Barack Obama is still pushing to enact progressive legislation. Obama signed the Bathrooms Accessible in Every Situation Act—also known as the BABIES Act––on Oct. 7. The BABIES Act requires “diaper-changing facilities in male and female restrooms in public federal buildings such as Social Security offices, courthouses and post offices,” according to CNN. With recent political debate regarding gendered bathrooms, this was a monumental move by Obama and will perhaps play a large role in defining the end of his presidency.

Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline first brought the bill to Congress in April, according to The Huffington Post. Cicilline argued, “No mom or dad should ever have to worry about finding a safe, sanitary place to change their baby—least of all in federal buildings [that are] paid for by taxpayers.”

This progressive bill draws attention to the struggles many men face when simply taking their infants out in public. The BABIES Act successfully illuminates and works to end fathers’ fears regarding being unable to properly tend to their children’s bathroom needs in a private, safe place.

This important issue was previously neglected by politics and the media, but has undeniably caused anxiety for fathers of infants. It is simply appalling to think that before this legislation, public institutions were not mandated to provide child-friendly bathrooms to both mothers and fathers. Although the bill cannot require private businesses to comply, it calls on public places, which, in turn, will hopefully raise standards for all establishments.

Not only does this bill alleviate apprehension about children’s bathroom needs, but it also helps to keep infants safe. Due to the lack of proper changing stations in men’s bathrooms, many fathers have been forced to use unconventional surfaces to change their children. Cicilline argued that this was both unsafe for the child being changed, but also for the rest of the public who would use the restroom in the future.

Actor and father Ashton Kutcher was one of the main supporters that helped evoke this legislative change. Kutcher “famously lamented the lack of changing tables in men’s restrooms and launched a Change.org campaign to call for businesses to implement them,” as noted by The Huffington Post.

Kutcher also claimed that this lack of childcare equality in bathrooms was indicative of society’s sexist views on parenting. In the 21st century, it is imperative that public places acknowledge the positive ways in which parenting has evolved. Women are no longer the sole gender caring for children; in fact, some children do not even have mothers.

Kutcher makes a strong claim by pointing out that, “Dads, like myself, want to participate equally in the child care process, and our society should support that.”

Obama’s signing of the BABIES Act is a monumental victory for all fathers and for all current and prospective parents. This legislation is a commendable step toward fighting the social insensitivity to the evolution of parenting. The bill has also created opportunities for continued conversation regarding changing the way society improperly views parenting as a strictly female duty.u

Societal pressures reflect lack of political engagement

It is imperative for United States citizens to be knowledgeable about our political processes—but the pressure placed upon us to be constantly opinionated and informed is gravely hurting this nation’s citizens. Comedian Jimmy Kimmel hosts a popular video segment called “Lie Witness News” in which his staff asks people on the streets or at events their opinions about ridiculous, made-up scenarios. The people featured in these videos typically feel compelled to be dishonest with the interviewer in order to avoid looking ignorant on that specific topic.

The most recent video “Lie Witness News - Presidential Debate Edition”—which aired on Sept. 27—asked American citizens their thoughts on the presidential debate between Republican nominee Donald Trump and former Secretary of State and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton the day before the debate occurred.

Every single person in the video lied about his or her thoughts, since the debate hadn’t even happened yet. In doing so, they prove themselves to be ignorant—though they don’t want to look it—as they agree with everything the interviewer referenced about the “presidential debate.”

Some notably ridiculous material the video features are made-up scenarios, such as Trump saying to Clinton, “Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire,” the candidates having a pull-up contest and each giving the other a “peck on the lips” at the close of the debate.

The video—although funny to watch—is extremely unsettling. It highlights the direct effects of the condescending way politics are talked about within the U.S. This is a serious issue because so many citizens are afraid to come across as ignorant when it comes to politics; they are willing to pretend they understand what is going on instead of actively learning about it.

In our society, it is seemingly unacceptable to say, “I don’t know” or “I don’t really have an opinion” when it comes to talking about politics. This is what causes so many people to get into irrelevant arguments, to lie about their knowledge on important subjects and to essentially become easily persuaded by other people’s opinions.

It should not be so acceptable to turn a blind eye to politics because being informed about elections is imperative to our nation’s future. Fostering an environment of honesty and inclusion when discussing politics in the public sphere, however, is needed to nourish this political engagement.

If more people were forthright with themselves, acknowledged how much they actually know about the upcoming election and were motivated to educate themselves, satirical videos such as Kimmel’s “Lie Witness News” would not exist.

It should be socially acceptable to admit that you haven’t had a chance to watch the debate or to read up on a candidate’s specific stance on an issue. Admitting this aloud—or at least just to ourselves—might encourage us to continue to learn about politics. Ultimately, our conversations about politics will become much more thought provoking and honest as a result.

New application process reduces felony discrimination

The SUNY Board of Trustees recently made a commendably progressive and positive change to the college application process, allowing SUNY to continue advocating for individuals’ fundamental right to education. The SUNY Board of Trustees voted to eliminate the portion of the SUNY college application that questions prospective students about their criminal history.

The New York Times reported that as of July 2017, students will not have to disclose their felony status on their SUNY college applications.

The SUNY program has 64 campuses across New York State and their mission is to provide “educational services of the highest quality, with the broadest possible access, fully representative of all segments of the population in a complete range of academic, professional and vocational postsecondary programs.” This has been their goal since their establishment in 1948, and since then, the SUNY system has done their best to offer equal-opportunity affordable higher education for many New York State residents.

In the past, however, students with a criminal record were alienated because applications required information about applicants’ criminal history. The New York Times reported that, “more than 60 percent of SUNY applicants who disclosed a felony conviction did not end up completing their applications.” The fact that students felt they could no longer achieve their college dream because of a simple question on an application is disheartening and proves that these students were not granted equal opportunity during admissions.

Making certain individuals feel alienated because of their criminal history not only affects their ability to attend a university, but also influences the rest of their lives. Higher education is a staple for most career paths, as it can grant young people a second chance that is imperative for their futures.

“Higher education represents an important stepping stone toward personal and professional fulfillment,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said. This is an important milestone for the SUNY system not only on an individual level, but for society as a whole.

In general, college applications should be based on merit and academic involvement alone. In the past, students were enraged when racial, ethnic and gender-based discrimination plagued the admissions process. It is relieving that discrimination based on criminal history is being addressed just as the former was. The recent policy change for the SUNY system is instrumental in making admissions more inclusive to all students.

Those who oppose this application amendment worry that it will welcome an influx of “dangerous” individuals to SUNY schools. The SUNY Board of Trustees, however, explains that once accepted, students must disclose any felonies and undergo a screening process to gain access to certain privileges such as special academic programs, study abroad programs or on-campus living. This is a commendable compromise that allows unbiased access to basic public higher education, yet still ensures the safety of others on SUNY campuses.

The SUNY system was admirably built upon a culture of inclusion and equal opportunity; this is exactly why the recent admissions amendment is so imperative. As Geneseo students, we should be proud to be a part of a higher education system that is at the forefront of admissions equality.

The SUNY system should be commended for its recent advancements and for continuing to push boundaries to allow all New Yorkers the right to higher education.u

On respecting academics: Major-shaming devalues student efforts

Choosing a major is one of the biggest decisions that incoming freshmen have to make in college. The process is often a source of stress for students due to the social implication that this decision is what determines a person’s future income level and job security. The idea that certain majors will unquestionably lead to a better job or a happier future is inaccurate and can be damaging to students’ confidence in a multitude of ways. According to Penn State Division of Undergraduate Studies, 50-80 percent of college students choose a major when entering college. Additionally, approximately 75 percent of those who choose a major upon arrival at college change that major throughout the course of their studies.

Many scholars have tried to understand why such an abundance of students struggle to choose the right major for them when they first enter college. One supported explanation for this is that students feel an immense amount of pressure from their parents or high school community to plan their futures early. They tend to choose certain majors that are deemed more impressive or respected by society––not necessarily the career path in which they would personally excel. This is a valid reason as to why many students change from their initial major.

Leighann Camarero’s 2013 WAMC Northeast Public Radio article “When it comes to choosing a major, college students feel the pressure,” emphasizes that, “Another factor impacting a student’s ability to choose a major that hopefully leads to a fulfilling career is the pressure to do so from society, peers and often parents.” It is extremely upsetting that young adults feel they cannot pursue their true passions in college because of society’s tendency to glorify certain careers and shame others.

Unfortunately, this unfair imposition does not end after a student’s decision to major in a certain subject. Once students commit to a course of study, many continue to experience unnecessary scrutiny. A term that has received attention from many college campus publications is “major shaming.” Major shaming refers to the way college students often make each other feel academically inadequate by insulting each other’s majors.

One reoccurring example of major shaming is students claiming that certain majors are “easier” than others. This type of allegation is completely baseless, as the difficulty of a course is relative to the student completing it. Furthermore, the need to put down others for the work they choose is unacceptable––regardless of whether someone is joking with friends or saying it to someone’s face. Many students dread being asked, “So, what are you studying?” because they fear the assumptions others will make about them based on their major.

Different majors should not be viewed as competing entities, but rather unique and separate fields of study. Creating an academic community that celebrates all majors will give students the confidence they need to pursue a career that best suits them—instead of one that society claims is most admirable.

The issue of major shaming cannot continue to be a norm of campus life; its ability to cause students to question themselves and to feel unsure about their futures can add even more stress to their undergraduate career. Every student pursuing a college degree has an equal right to be successful and to pursue a career that they love. Stepping back and realizing that it takes all kinds of majors to make up a college campus—and the American work force—is crucial to a college community.