Excelsior Scholarship program fails to address burden of student loans debt

View fullsize

Gov. Andrew Cuomo and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sign the bill for the first free college tuition plan on April 12. Cuomo’s bill aims to help lower income families afford college, but doesn’t address the other excessive costs attending college entails. (Darren McGee/AP Photo)

Debt-free college seemed like an unattainable dream promised by Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Bernie Sanders during his campaign—and with Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s new approved New York State budget, it could stay a dream for many students.

Cuomo’s new tuition program is a less-than-perfect step toward helping future young Americans manage their student debt—if they can afford to pay the more expensive room and board costs.

The Excelsior Scholarship program determines students whose families earn less than $100,000 eligible for full tuition scholarships, according to a Thursday April 13 article in The Lamron. This applies as long as these students are enrolled full-time, take an average of 30 credits each year and live in New York State for a certain number of years after graduation.

Additionally, the cap for family income will grow to $110,000 in 2018 and to $125,000 in 2019, thus including more students in similar income brackets.

This program is not useless, as many high school students from lower class and lower-middle class communities will be relieved of at least some financial burden. 

The specific requirements to give students eligibility are not exceptionally difficult—even the requirement for post-graduate students to live in New York for the same number of years they received free tuition is inconvenient at worst, and reasonable at best. 

From an economic standpoint, it is in the state government’s best interest to make sure their educational investment in students reinvests back into New York itself.

The issue of room and board costs, however, is what worries many New York state students. Room and board costs at the average SUNY school can add up to $10,000-$15,000 per year, according to SUNY’s website.

While proactive students can apply for more scholarships and funding to pay for room and board costs—which are approximately twice as expensive as tuition itself—they will most likely fall back on student loans. 

A student at Geneseo who is required to live on campus freshman and sophomore year—who may already need financial help through the tuition program—could accrue more than $20,000 in student loan debt in just their first two years at college.

It isn’t useful to complain about the cost of college at this stage—it is unfortunately an accepted fact that most college students will suffer with debt for years or even decades after graduation. 

Cuomo’s tuition plan will help cut down those costs, if only by a few thousand dollars in total—which most would agree is better than nothing.

Even with this financial aid, however, college could still be an unattainable goal for students in the targeted income bracket—or even students in higher income brackets—who are not financially supported by their parents. 

The assumption that all parents of high school graduates and college hopefuls voluntarily offer financial aid for either tuition or room and board is unrealistic, and could leave struggling students without the financial help they need.

While the tuition program is a step in the right direction, any eligible students need to be completely aware of how the legislation affects them. 

The excitement about “free college” on social media and in the news is irresponsible, as those who do not read the fine print may not realize there are additional costs that are even more expensive than tuition.

To help the student debt crises, we would need an overhaul of our current higher public education system. In the meantime, we should support new initiatives to support students financially and to broaden the resources for those who still see higher education as an expensive dream.

American voters responsible for being informed about politics

Accurate news reporting in the age of President Donald Trump’s administration is as necessary as ever—and, it seems particularly difficult to find. As Trump continues his ongoing cabinet appointments and meetings with international leaders, staying informed about current events is so important under this difficult and unpredictable administration.

While finding completely unbiased news is difficult, it is not too difficult to regularly research and to check up on daily political news and events just to stay casually informed about what is going on in our government. 

Since I don’t have too much time during the day to sit down and to read in-depth about the news, Twitter notifications from the Associated Press and other similar news organizations allow me to stay somewhat informed about current politics while navigating school and work every day.

This influx of notifications, however—and the ongoing discourse surrounding the quality of journalism and certain news outlets—is overwhelming, to say the least. While it is extremely important to stay informed about current events under Trump’s administration, it is tempting to want to step off the grid and separate oneself from the dizzying Internet news world.

I believe that despite some people’s desire to keep politics out of their personal lives, it is harmful and ignorant to be passive about politics. It is a privilege to be able to stay out of political discussions or to stay uninformed, as this shows that one may be in a comfortable position where some crucial political decisions—such as the defunding of Planned Parenthood or the immigration ban—will not affect oneself or one’s family.

Although it is tiring and stressful—both mentally and emotionally—to engage oneself in disappointing and frustrating politics on a regular basis, it keeps us citizens on our toes and ready to keep our government and politicians accountable for their actions. 

Dozens of notifications about Trump’s scandals with Russian officials and Senate members are not the most uplifting things to read in the morning—but to choose ignorance over information harms society in the long run.

Trump’s grievances about corrupt news outlets are a ploy to further build Americans’ distrust of the media. While criticism of the media is a valid viewpoint, we must retaliate by reading as much diverse media as possible—instead of just ignoring it and blaming bias.

Giving yourself a break from reading or watching disheartening and frightening political news is absolutely welcomed. But for those who are privileged, we cannot let our discomfort and cognitive dissonance move us toward a side of ignorance and neutrality against oppressors. 

The best weapon a citizen has against the government is knowledge. The more we know about what is going on behind closed doors in the White House, the better chance we have of making positive differences in local government and in future federal administrations.

Women’s march exudes white privilege, requires intersectionality

View fullsize

The Women’s March on Washington in Washington D.C. occurred on Saturday Jan. 21 and inspired dozens of other anti-Trump marches around the world. The original march, however, faces criticism of white-washed feminist politics and lack of intersectional representation. (Brian Cassella/AP Photo)

President Donald Trump’s inauguration, despite public claims and tweets, was not the most-attended inauguration ceremony in United States history. The inauguration, in fact, was overshadowed by another significant social and political event—the Women’s March on Washington. Not only was the event held in Washington, D.C., but also in dozens of other places around the globe. 

Half a million people gathered in Washington, D.C. on Saturday Jan. 21 in support for women’s rights related to reproduction and contraception and in protest against the new Trump administration. Similar marches were held in major U.S. cities such as New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, and in areas on every continent—including Antarctica. It is estimated that 4.3-4.6 million people marched in support worldwide. 

While the D.C. women’s march showed a passionate increase in political efficacy and contemporary organization for women’s rights, it is not above criticism for its tendency to place whiteness at its core and to exclude people of color, trans people, disabled people and other oppressed groups from their mainstream rhetoric.

While the march centered on women’s rights and reproductive justice in reaction to recent legislation condemning Planned Parenthood, it was also a large-scale anti-Trump rally. Because of the nature of the protest, many different groups participated to bring awareness to numerous different issues—including racism, homophobia and environmental rights. 

What stood out about the march, however, was that its peacefulness and success were due to the white privilege of most of its participants.

Many critics, including editor of feminist website The Establishment Ijeoma Oluo, attribute the positivity, camaraderie and safety of the march to white peoples’ ability to organize in large crowds without an immediate, violent reaction from police.

“To brag that no one was arrested at a march that was filled with white women, as if that is an accomplishment that you really had a huge part of, what it does is it says that marches that were branded as ‘disruptive’ are less than,” Oluo said in a Tuesday Jan. 24 Boston radio interview.

In Internet discourse, the women’s march was compared to recent and ongoing national Black Lives Matter protests and the Dakota Access Pipeline protests that garner negative press and receive aggressive and deadly police intervention. While the entirety of Saturday’s marches included support for both these and other related causes, it was the overwhelming presence of white women that reimagined protesting and demonstration in a “peaceful” light—or, rather, biased media and spectators constructed it as so.

In an iconic photo that captures the essence of the march’s criticism, protestor Angela Peoples is portrayed sucking on a lollipop with a sign that says, “Don’t forget: White Women Voted for Trump” while a group of white women protestors take selfies and use their phones in the background. Images are powerful, and Peoples’ contribution to the critique of white, mainstream feminism is valuable for future discussions and education about intersectional feminism.

To say intersectionality is needed in all feminist discourse and activism is an understatement. Not only do organized marches reflect what protestors are passionate about, but they also reflect what protests are ignorant of. White women need to use their white privilege to support and to aid the women of color, trans women, LGBTQ+ women and disabled women that have less power in society to stand up against their oppressors. White women must attend, contribute and help organize events that directly address the problems faced by other groups of oppressed women.

While the worldwide demonstrations against Trump show promise that we can still stand together to make change in the current political climate, we must ask ourselves who is benefiting from our efforts and who is still left behind.

On questioning the state of democracy in U.S., Colombia

Democracy is hitting roadblocks and experiencing internal conflict in nations around the world. The struggle to maintain balances of power and political representation of citizens in a democracy is clearly demonstrated by current situations in the United States and Colombia. The U.S. electoral college system’s power over the popular vote and the Colombian government’s recent dismissal of a referendum vote exemplify ways in which democracy can be flawed and exploited, even in well-intentioned governments. Colombia’s situation—not unlike the electoral college’s election of President-elect Donald Trump despite former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s popular vote win—begs the question of how democracy can be upheld and respected when a country is so drastically divided over an issue. Additionally, it raises the issue of how democracy is actively being redefined.

The Colombian government has been at war with the rebel group Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia for over 50 years. Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos and FARC leader Rodrigo Londoño publicly shook hands and signed a peace agreement on Sept. 26 to finally end the groups’ decades-long conflict. To implement and ratify the peace agreement, however, Colombian citizens needed to approve it under a referendum vote.

The referendum was expected by Santos and most major polls to be approved by a landslide vote. Colombians, however, shockingly vetoed the referendum, with a slim margin of 50.2 percent disapproval to 49.8 percent approval. Colombian citizens are greatly divided over the peace agreement; supporters want to finally establish peace between the groups, while those who oppose want the Colombian government to give FARC leaders harsher punishments for their alleged war crimes.

It was expected that the Colombian government would revise the peace agreement to appease the opposition—by disallowing FARC leaders to hold political office, for example—and host another referendum vote to update public opinion. The government, however, decided to implement the agreement—despite the public’s direct disapproval of it—without hosting a second referendum vote. Santos ignored the majority of Colombia’s population when installing policies that may have mixed effects on political, economic, social and governmental sectors of the country.

The U.S. supported the peace agreement and pledged to boost U.S. aid to Colombia by nearly 50 percent if it was approved by Colombian citizens, according to The Washington Post. It is interesting that the U.S.—historically involved in many failed or complicated attempts to install democratic governments in Latin America—is financially involved in the Colombian-FARC agreement while experiencing its own conflict of democracy.

These recent conflicts of democratic interest show that the Colombian president—and, similarly, the electoral college in the U.S.—can overrule public opinion on important issues and elections. Additionally, promised financial gain from the U.S. for the approved peace agreement adds suspicion to Colombia’s decision to violate the referendum results.

If presidential powers or a legislative system can change or delegitimize a democratically elected decision, how can a society define itself as democratic? With the infiltration of political elites in the U.S. legislative and political system—and financial incentives for Colombia to disregard a democratic vote—it seems that not even well intentioned government is free from political corruption.

Political systems are not easy to reform or fix. If growing disillusionment with the current status of democracy is used to fuel social movement—such as through recent petitions calling for a recount of the U.S. presidential election—then the power of a population can resist an increasing disregard of basic democratic principles.

Rosemary polenta for a Thanksgiving vegan alternative

Warm, crumbly cornbread is usually a staple at the Thanksgiving table, and polenta is a great vegan alternative. It’s a simple side dish perfect for experimenting with different spices and flavor combinations.

Rosemary Polenta

Ingredients:

1 cup polenta grits

3 cups water

6 tablespoons vegan butter

4 tablespoons nutritional yeast

2 tablespoons rosemary

1 tablespoon thyme

1 teaspoon garlic powder

Salt and pepper

Directions:

1. Preheat the oven to 375 degrees Fahrenheit.

2. Add three cups of water and one cup of polenta grits to a large skillet or saucepan on medium-to-high heat.

3. Mix polenta with wooden spoon continuously for about 10 minutes.

4. Once polenta begins to form a paste, add four tablespoons of vegan butter, nutritional yeast, rosemary, thyme,

garlic powder, salt and pepper. Continue mixing for five to 10 more minutes.

5. Use the remaining two tablespoons of vegan butter to grease a glass baking dish. Once polenta firms and

begins to bubble, scoop into dish and bake for 20 minutes.

6. Chill polenta in the fridge for a few hours.

7. Reheat and cut into squares before serving.

What does America do now? Post-election anxiety can inspire social change

When lame duck president Barack Obama was elected in 2008, most current college-aged students were only in middle school. The 2016 presidential election is the first that many are eligible to vote in—and is arguably one of the most controversial and unprecedented elections in recent history—so emotions are running high in response to the results. Voters who are not just disappointed, but also sad and frightened by the election of Donald Trump should express their heavy emotions in a productive way. For the numerous groups of people Trump alienated during his campaign—such as people of color, immigrants, women and the LGBTQ+ community—the wake of Election Day brings the promise of organized solidarity and change.

Many marginalized and disenfranchised people who are personally affected by Trump’s insults and proposed policies flooded social media with posts expressing their anxiety and recent experiences of violent discrimination. One Rochester resident reported that a gay pride flag displayed in front of their house was set on fire and destroyed, and former Geneseo student and New York City resident John Rodney Turner reported that he was publicly harassed and called racial slurs by a Trump supporter in Times Square.

The one productive takeaway from the election results is how the cultural racism, misogyny and general ignorance permeating many areas of America have been brought to the undeniable surface. Because people who are privileged often ignore or choose not to believe in the existence of institutional prejudices and discrimination, this very public acknowledgement of Trump’s threat to marginalized people cannot be easily thrown away.

I believe that those who are fearful for their safety in the face of this horrifying outburst of collective ignorance deserve to take some time to rest and exercise self-care. Whether that means spending time with friends and loved ones or skipping class to get extra sleep, we should understand that facing fear and discrimination on a regular basis has a legitimate mental and emotional toll on individuals.

It is no doubt that organization and collective action efforts are crucial in these next 70 days before Trump’s inauguration. After taking a breath and collecting thoughts, young anti-Trump activists will be more inspired than ever to take ahold of and influence the future of the country.

The motivation of young people—the same motivation that brought Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to a once-promising candidate position—is crucial for organizing action against a dangerous and toxic president-elect. Starting as early as Wednesday Nov. 9, protests formed in Boston, Chicago, Seattle, NYC and other cities across the country, according to The New York Times. College campuses in Massachusetts, California and Pennsylvania hosted demonstrations as well.

The success of grassroots collective action is not always definite or predictable. As long as existing societal and governmental institutions threaten the livelihood and rights of marginalized American citizens, however, there will exist the inspiration of individuals to take metaphorical arms against injustice.

For now, we air our uncensored grievances on social media and begin the early stages of creating social change.

Adverse effects should motivate new research in birth control

Women too frequently experience societal double standards often led by hegemonic masculine ideals. The recent controversy over the temporary halt of men’s birth control research due to its medical side effects reveals not only that women experience sexism in healthcare, but also that men’s and women’s reproductive health needs further contemporary research. A study published on Thursday Oct. 27 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism observed overall success in pregnancy prevention by use of a male hormonal birth control injection. The researchers terminated the study early, however, due to some participants experiencing uncomfortable side effects from the birth control.

The study went viral both for its precedent in the future market of men’s birth control, but also for backlash against the proclaimed “mild” side effects that men experienced. The most common side effects of the injection were generally normal, including injection site pain, increased libido and acne. The more serious side effects of the injection—such as severe depression and damage to fertility—are not discussed as often in the current debate about men’s versus women’s birth control side effects.

Uncomfortable side effects are all too common for women who take hormonal birth control pills. Birth control pills can worsen depression in women, cause painful periods, mood swings, headaches and—in more serious cases—fatal blood clots.

Many Facebook and Twitter users circulated the study, adding indignant comments about the gender double standard within reproductive health. Many women shared their personal stories about uncomfortable or severe birth control side effects, expressing frustration that women have endured these effects for decades, yet men could not even bear them just for a research study.

There is a logical argument for women’s frustration over the comparison of birth control side effects. There is a long history of women receiving healthcare clouded by casual sexism, as seen through the difficult and politically-charged abortion process and the refusal of privately-owned companies to fund contraceptives to employees.

Women, historically, have been expected to take responsibility for their sexual decisions and contraceptives more seriously than men. Additionally, women are usually more shamed or ostracized if an unwanted pregnancy occurs.

While it is understandable that women are angry that research for men’s birth control has been deemed too harsh for men—side effects that women’s birth control pills have caused for decades—the study can be used in a positive way to improve all contraceptives.

The serious effects of men’s birth control—such as depression and decreased fertility—should not be overlooked, just as the serious effects of women’s birth control—also depression and fatal blood clots—should not be overlooked. The reaction of researchers to the side effects of men’s birth control should be applied to women’s birth control as well.

Researchers and medical professionals should use this public reaction to fund studies that research better birth control options for both men and women. If both hormonal methods cause side effects, one’s effects should not be considered harsher than the other. New research studying the severe side effects of birth control would be beneficial for the overall reproductive health of the country, which has been lacking in recent years.

It is frustrating that men often don’t take women’s health and pain seriously—that is, unless men endure the same pain. This situation is parallel to the argument that if men menstruated, then employers would allow designated sick days every month. Once we identify the societal double standards, however, we can build an argument for equally researching and developing healthier contraceptives for future generations.

Halloween encourages expression of graphic violence

After observing a Long Island home that was decorated with bodies hung by their necks on tree branches during October break, I was reminded about how desensitized our society is to violence and death. If a neighbor constructed a grueling massacre scene in his yard during April, there would be probable cause for suspicion and alarm. But it is acceptable—and encouraged—in October to display blood, gore and scenes of brutal death right on one’s own front lawn. These decorations bring a dark meaning to the word “festive.”

Halloween themes can arguably be defined in three broad categories: innocent autumn fun, supernatural legends and bodily horror. Innocent autumn fun celebrates the fall harvest with jack-o-lanterns, bobbing for apples and homemade costumes, while supernatural legends entertain the existence of witches, demons and ghosts. Bodily horror brings Halloween traditions to uncomfortable and disturbing heights with depictions of death, torture and disfigurement.

This is not necessarily an argument against contemporary Halloween’s portrayal of violence. Rather, it is a critical analysis of how—and why—people can celebrate this imagery for one special month out of the year without recognizing the implications of their behavior.

The cherishment of Halloween and horror films suggests that our society has a fascination with death. Experiencing loss in our lives impacts our physical, mental and emotional wellbeing, and what happens to a person’s consciousness after they die is one of the few phenomena we are still scientifically—and religiously—unsure about. To soothe the cognitive dissonance of facing one’s mortality and unknown afterlife, death is cultivated into a form of entertainment.

The popularity—and consequent media controversies—of crime documentaries such as “Making a Murderer” and “The Killing of JonBenet” exemplify the easiness with which we can blur horrible reality with callous entertainment. This entertainment goes even further with haunted house attractions, as some—such as McKamey Manor in San Diego, California—require a signed waiver in order to physically assault, mentally abuse and traumatize guests all in good fun and in the spirit of Halloween.

During Halloween, we subject ourselves to explicitly violent imagery that we often forget is a reflection of true events—and true loss. And these depictions can have an emotional impact on those who do not wish to participate in them.

Fascination with death is not necessarily a bad thing, but we can be critical of how this fascination is executed during Halloween festivities. We should question when and at what point is displaying and cultivating graphic violence an appropriate expression of this fascination. This behavior borderlines appreciation for and celebration of brutality and murder, rather than of an innocent pagan holiday marketed toward children.

Halloween isn’t the sole reason our society is desensitized to violence. Simply watching the news and witnessing war and tragedy from all over the world contributes to lessening our sensitivity. Halloween, however, is the unique time when we outwardly—and very publicly—express this desensitization on a large scale.

The juxtaposition of people mourning local and global tragedies one day—and then engaging in simulated brutality for entertainment the next day—is particularly troubling. It seems as though we are not self-aware of our own actions and behaviors during Halloween and how they reflect our beliefs and morals.

Having a colorful imagination and being festive during this time of year isn’t inherently wrong. But we might want to think twice before scattering fake amputated limbs on our porches and splattering blood on our driveways. This imagery is rooted in real violence, and those who do not wish to experience Halloween in such a disturbing way are barely able to avoid it.

One Direction inevitably go separate ways, pursue solo projects

More than six years ago, international pop culture was forever impacted by the formation of pop quintet One Direction. This isn’t exactly an exaggeration—since 2010, the boy band continuously topped the charts in over 30 countries, sold out four international album tours, plastered their faces and logo on every possible commodity and cultivated a wild fan base rivaled only by that of Justin Bieber. The extent to which One Direction hysteria spread across the globe led to a fairly accurate—and controversial—comparison to the popularity of The Beatles.

All good things must come to an end, but the fate of One Direction isn’t completely confirmed. Their “hiatus”—officiated in January—is a kind of ambiguously dressed letter of resignation. Now-soloist Zayn Malik left the group in March 2015, leaving the remaining four members to carry out their last album release and tour without him. The hiatus is scheduled to end after 18 months, but since Malik’s departure—and public feuds between him and member Louis Tomlinson—it finally feels like time to pull the plug.

Malik infamously took the first steps toward distancing himself from his former band mates with his solo album Mind of Mine, humorously released on the one-year anniversary of his departure from the band. Although Malik emphasizes his independence from the band—exemplified by tense, if not non-existent, interactions with the remaining four—his album wouldn’t have been as popular without dedicated One Direction fans. The album itself wasn’t enthusiastically praised by outside listeners, proving that Malik’s solo transition is still haunted by his boy band past.

Niall Horan, Harry Styles and Liam Payne have since slowly—and somewhat discreetly—followed in Malik’s footsteps while maintaining their One Direction ties. Horan was the first after Malik to release his own music with a surprise release of his stripped-down single “This Town” and an accompanying music video on Sept. 29. Styles and Payne both signed solo contracts in the summer with the promise of future music careers.

Styles seems to be having the best time out of all of the former band mates during this period of transition and mental convalescence. The singer was cast in award-winning director Christopher Nolan’s upcoming film Dunkirk, a World War II historical piece that allows Styles to explore a more creative and serious art form. And from the explosive reaction from fans about leaked on-set photos, there is no doubt the film will benefit from some revived One Direction publicity.

Tomlinson had a scandalous final year with the boyband, as the singer had a child in January with a previously unknown Los Angeles socialite.  Fans were in an uproar over rumors and conspiracy theories about the relationship. Tomlinson lucked out—Malik’s solo album eventually overshadowed the scandal. He has been able to stay out of the spotlight to work on his own independent music label during the hiatus.

It must be difficult to enjoy down time and to pursue personal interests when you’re some of the most recognizable young celebrities in the world. But public interest in One Direction will inevitably fade—if it hasn’t started to already—and the five pop stars will someday wear a B-list or C-list celebrity label.

For now, I’m ready to enjoy the sappy acoustic love songs and golf Instagram photos that have come to define this hiatus. But if all the members decide to permanently part ways, it would be for the best; pursing independent goals and dreams is exactly where they belong.

Vegan pumpkin spice snickerdoodles for dairy-free fall festivities

It’s finally autumn—or, as we should call it, pumpkin spice season. Sometimes vegans feel left out of the fall festivities as everyone enjoys dairy-filled pumpkin spice lattes, donuts and ice cream. This snickerdoodle recipe, however, fits perfectly in the season and tastes so delicious that you won’t even realize it’s vegan. Vegan Pumpkin Spice Snickerdoodles

Makes approximately 24 cookies

Ingredients:

1 flax egg (1 tablespoon flax seeds and 3 tablespoons water – let soak for 10 minutes)

1 cup Earth Balance vegan butter

1 cup white sugar

1 cup brown sugar

3/4 cup canned pumpkin puree

2 1/2 cups flour

1/2 teaspoon baking soda

1 teaspoon baking powder

1 teaspoon vanilla extract

1 teaspoon cinnamon

1 teaspoon nutmeg

1 teaspoon allspice

1/2 teaspoon ground cloves

1/2 teaspoon garam masala

1/2 teaspoon ground cardamom

1/4 teaspoon salt

Directions:

1. Preheat the oven to 400 degrees.

2. Beat warmed butter, white sugar and brown sugar together. Beat in the pumpkin puree. Add

flax egg and vanilla extract, then thoroughly combine.

3. In a separate bowl, combine flour, baking soda, baking powder, cinnamon, nutmeg, allspice,

cloves, garam masala, cardamom and salt. Add this mixture slowly into puree mixture in batches, beating thoroughly

as you go.

4. In another separate bowl, combine white sugar and cinnamon. Use a small ice cream scoop to

measure out balls of dough, or eyeball to about 1.5 inches in diameter.

5. Bake cookies for 12-15 minutes until visibly browned. Let cool and harden before eating.

Enjoy!

Rob Lowe’s celebrity roast becomes uncouth attack on conservative Ann Coulter

There’s nothing more satisfying than watching a powerful, rich celebrity—especially one you dislike—be humiliated by their peers in the name of harmless fun. It’s a redeeming quality to be able to make fun of yourself, and a celebrity roast tests the limit of humility on a large scale. The recent roast of actor Rob Lowe, however, left a bitter aftertaste about the nature of celebrity roasts and the intentions of those who participate in them. Celebrity roasts are not just meant to insult the star—they’re also meant to celebrate and appreciate them for their achievements, work and overall good spirit. Many “roastees” are incredibly successful or iconic individuals who contribute in some way to our society.

The Aug. 27 roast of Rob Lowe transformed these good-natured intentions when the spotlight was temporarily shifted to a different roastee—conservative political commentator, Ann Coulter. Coulter was cast as one of Lowe’s roasters—using her airtime to promote her new book about presidential candidate Donald Trump—and was later ambushed with insults from Lowe and the rest of the roasting team.

Coulter isn’t exactly a popular personality; she regularly offends and angers people from all sides of the political spectrum with her tweets, television commentary and books. Some of the insults directed at Coulter criticized her racism, Islamophobia and ties to white supremacist groups. Arguably, these roasts were based on some truth and were clever ways to shame Coulter’s offensive and rude behaviors through humor.

Comedian Jimmy Carr, however, stepped over the good-humored boundary of the roast and insulted Coulter with unequivocally inappropriate jokes. Not only did Carr used transphobic language to describe Coulter’s appearance, but blatantly told her to kill herself. Other roasters based their insults completely on Coulter’s appearance too, comparing her to a horse and a skeleton. This strategy can be seen as a lazy and cheap attack, since Coulter’s career and actions could write the jokes themselves.

Usually anything goes at a celebrity roast—including toilet humor and mean jabs at one’s appearance. But Lowe was meant to be the night’s target, not Coulter. It was uncomfortable to hear Carr throw such aggressive and ignorant insults at the latter. Carr’s unjustified roast reflects a low quality of comedic talent on his part.

But it has proven difficult to police comedy, and it’s a constant topic in art and entertainment circles. Some comedians criticize “political correctness” and believe comedy can satirize any topic, no matter how serious or offensive it may be. Usually major tragedies or traumatic disasters are off the table, yet there are always comedians out there who want to see just how far they can push those boundaries.

Smart, professional comedy shouldn’t reduce itself to racism, homophobia, transphobia and other offenses. The real test of a comedian’s talent is how cleverly they can construct anecdotes and jokes that have a collected meaning all the way up to the punch line—and not jokes that just make fun of a person for their appearance or weight.

The inclusion of a surprise roast of Coulter was definitely satisfying—but only for those who dislike her attitudes and prejudices. The fun nature of the celebrity roast should be kept lighthearted and appreciative, not become subjectively harmful to those who are watching it. The celebrity roast is a prime example of comedic discourse that struggles to understand the appropriate limits of its craft.

Netflix sci-fi series draws wide audience with outlandish plot, characters

Netflix has recently perfected the art of television binge-watching with its full-season original series releases. The popularity of “House of Cards” and “Orange is the New Black”—and Netflix users’ growing desire to defy physics and watch a complete series in seemingly less time than scientifically possible—have set a precedent for the streaming format. Netflix succeeds in fulfilling our binging expectations once again with its summer release of the science fiction drama “Stranger Things.” “Stranger Things,” created by brothers Matt and Ross Duffer, came at an impeccable moment. Current pop culture is nostalgic about older cult classics—seen through the recent and upcoming revivals of 90s series “The X-Files” and “Twin Peaks.” The Duffers’ series fits right in among the aesthetics of these shows with its convincing 80s setting, mood and fashion. It creates the perfect balance between retro staging and details and modern cinematic trends.

“Stranger Things” focuses on a supernatural mystery in a small, rural Indiana town. A young boy named Will—portrayed by Noah Schnapp—seems to disappear out of thin air and his imaginative young friends work together to find him. Will’s mother Joyce—played by the iconic Winona Ryder—also teams up with David Harbour’s pessimistic police chief Jim Hopper to uncover the secrets—and the ominous creature—responsible for Will’s disappearance.

The secrets behind Will’s disappearance span across dimensions and reality, and introduce the mysterious character Eleven, a child-slash-lab experiment portrayed by Millie Bobby Brown. A favorite among the show’s fans, Eleven brings drama, action and occasional comic relief to the show through her friendship with the young boys. Bobby Brown, in addition to Mike, Dustin and Lucas—portrayed by Finn Wolfhard, Gaten Matarazzo and Caleb McLaughlin respectively—are great, young frontrunners and bring impressive charisma and life to the dull, eerie setting of Hawkins, Indiana.

While the talented young cast is a highlight of the show, the writing of the female characters yields mixed emotions. While some critics disliked Ryder’s dramatic portrayal of an emotional and persistent mother, it seems she skillfully performed the disappointing characterization she was given by the show’s writers.

Joyce fits the stereotype of a hysterical mother shunned by her community until a powerful man, Chief Hopper, validates her feelings and earns some credit for it. The audience is left feeling that Joyce deserves more recognition for her contribution of discovering the central mystery instead of being somewhat overshadowed by Hopper.

In another plotline, Will’s brother Jonathan—portrayed by Charlie Heaton—and Mike’s sister Nancy—portrayed by Natalia Dyer—form another team determined to face the strange, unknown things lurking in their hometown. The audience is given a first impression of Nancy as a seemingly stereotypical popular and pretty girl, but she proves to be clever and badass in the face of unbelievable danger.

It is disappointing then that her relationship with her boring and slightly annoying boyfriend Steve—portrayed by Joe Keery—is what the series’ writers continually remind us about in unnecessary and often eye-rolling moments—and in other moments, her suggestive relationship with Jonathan. Furthermore, Nancy’s friend Barbara—an unexpected fan favorite portrayed by Shannon Purser—is more of a disposable plot detail than a real person.

“Stranger Things” satisfies a craving for a smart and entertaining thriller among the often kitschy and repetitive science fiction genre. I plan to re-watch the first season multiple times to discover clues and debunk conspiracy theories, and I highly anticipate another binge-watching session when the second season is released next year.

Pipeline protest exemplifies suppressed freedom of assembly

The United States’ nationalistic culture continually emphasizes and protects the specific freedoms and rights its citizens were granted in the Constitution. Freedom of speech, for example, is so celebrated and ingrained in our daily lives that it reaches the point where we would be troubled—and in trouble—if it were taken away. I argue that while the freedom of assembly is one of the most important rights U.S. citizens have exercised in recent years, it is gradually being threatened by a wave of public impatience and intolerance. Protests have been used as methods of resistance within social movements and organizations for centuries and are the perfect example of behaviors the freedom of assembly protects. Recent national protests—such as those conducted by the Black Lives Matter movement in response to police brutality—are often met with aggressive police contact and suppression of assembly rights. It is this violence and aggression that draws my attention to the current treatment of Native American protestors in North Dakota.

According to National Public Radio, members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other allied indigenous tribes are protesting the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline, a crude oil pipeline which could disturb sacred Sioux lands and contaminate reservation drinking water.  Men, women and children were attacked with pepper spray and some were bitten by guard dogs on Saturday Sept. 3 in response to growing tensions between demonstrators and private property owners.

There seems to be a trending opinion among average citizens that protests must be quiet and peaceful. If demonstrators show any signs of aggression––such as yelling at authorities or trespassing––they deserve to be suppressed and physically punished. Because the pipeline demonstrators grew to a big crowd and refused to leave the private construction site, authority challenged them. Disturbing photographs from the protest show dogs’ bared teeth, red with blood from attacking demonstrators.

The idea that private property is more important than the safety of human lives is one I struggle to comprehend. When hundreds of impassioned people organize together for a certain cause, it must be treated seriously and with respect. In this situation, simple trespassing laws allowed suppression methods to be introduced. This not only endangered the lives of the demonstrators, but it tarnished the reputation of their cause by suggesting they were delinquent and dangerous.

This protest, however, did succeed where other demonstrations often fail—it achieved its first goal and temporarily halted the construction of the pipeline. This victory reflects the necessity to push the boundaries of authority in order to gain attention; it is unlikely that a protest will make a difference if there is no explicit action or disturbance taking place.

The growing problem with this, though, is the shrinking threshold of what authorities will tolerate during demonstrations. When trespassing and chanting—common and manageable protest methods—provoke dangerous police interference, the freedom to assemble gets more and more difficult to achieve. If demonstrators are unable to make their statement through a nonthreatening, meaningful disruption without the fear of serious injury, we must rethink how our freedom to assemble is being policed.

This is not a suggestion that protesters are always peaceful and morally right in their demonstrations or that they never threaten harm to others. But the current trend of unnecessarily violent backlash against social and political demonstrations eerily echoes an oppressive, militaristic state.

Women's studies course should be requirement

As a sociology major and women’s studies minor, I find myself surrounded by intelligent individuals who dedicate their academic lives to understanding diversity and conflict in the social world. As final exams approach, I'm drowning in classwork and readings related to racism, sexism, global inequality and LGBTQ+ rights. Many times throughout this school year at Geneseo, however, I've experienced cognitive dissonance between the welcoming and stimulating discourse in the classroom and the problematic and offensive behavior of individuals outside on the greater campus.

In response to racist and anti-LGBTQ+ behaviors and language reported by many students throughout this year, I propose that introductory courses in women's studies be a general education requirement at Geneseo. To say I feel disappointment and shame about the actions of fellow students at my college while other students and I study this discipline in order to combat and prevent these actions is a great understatement.

The day I failed a physical geology exam was not a bright one for me—science and math are not my strong suits. I was required to take natural science courses to fulfill a general education requirement typical of a liberal arts school. I can guarantee, however, that categorizing rocks and understanding the formation of volcanoes is not relevant to my pursuit of studying social change and helping oppressed groups under my current areas of study.

When we reverse this example and claim that required learning about oppressed groups, social inequality and the social construction of gender is not relevant to science, technology, engineering and math majors, I definitely disagree. As students, we are all a part of a small community that echoes the function of larger society. No matter your major, you will encounter individuals who differ from yourself in many ways—including race, class, gender identity and ability. I believe all students should at least experience an introductory course about the diversity and complexity of different groups of people in order to combat ignorance on our campus.

All State University of New York colleges are required to enact education requirements of at least seven different disciplines—at Geneseo, only the social science requirement comes close to offering the type of requirement I suggest. There are at least 50 classes of different disciplines that can fulfill the two social science requirements. In my opinion, sociology courses are the best options on the current list to potentially address these issues. I believe an introductory course in women’s studies should be added as a required discipline.

As a student who transferred many Advanced Placement exam credits from high school as an incoming freshman, my social science requirements were already fulfilled. For students in similar situations, a student can go through their entire college career without taking a sociology or women’s studies course.

Geneseo’s women’s studies department has great introductory courses that address social and economic inequality, gender inequality, institutional racism and LGBTQ+ issues. For a predominantly white college, I believe it is important for students to learn about these topics as—from my own personal experience—students who come from majority-white areas are often unaware of inequalities and oppressions their fellow students may face.

I’m not sure if I believe that taking a geology course makes me a well-rounded liberal arts student. But I do believe all people should be educated on how to respect and support one another’s differences through an addition to the general education requirement.

It is very important for a college campus—especially one as small as Geneseo—to actively educate students starting freshman year about how to overcome ignorance and implicit biases. I believe addressing our own internalized issues and undoing our personal prejudices truly makes us well-rounded students.

Treatment of protestors violates democratic values, civility

Schuyler County Sheriff’s Deputy J.D. Sworts and Town Clerk Alice Conklin behaved abominably toward protesters of the We Are Seneca Lake movement on March 16 in Reading, New York.

According to the public statement from We Are Seneca Lake “Regarding Chaos, Danger and Negligence at the Reading Town Court on March 16, 2016,” when 70 protesters who had been arrested for disorderly conduct violations while peacefully protesting the storage of methane, butane and propane in the unlined salt mines below Seneca Lake showed up for their scheduled 5 p.m. arraignments at the town court, a large number of them were intentionally locked out of the building, supposedly due to the fact that the courtroom could only hold 48 individuals.

Despite their pleas––and the fact that there was an additional waiting room inside––the protestors and their supporters were forced to stand outside in the middle of a thunder and hail storm while waiting to be arraigned for approximately three hours. To make this act even more atrocious, most of the people were over the age of 60.

The sheriff’s department is charged with ensuring public order. It was perfectly reasonable of them to arrest the protesters who were blocking traffic to the Crestwood Midstream facility in order to peacefully object to their unsafe storage practices. But on the date of the arraignment, the sheriff’s department far overstepped the bounds of their duty.

One blatant example of this is when Conklin told one protester, “If you can protest in this weather, you can stand out in it now.” Such treatment is completely inappropriate coming from a public official, as it only suggests hostility toward the movement and an intolerance of those who perform acts of civil disobedience.

The We Are Seneca Lake movement began in October 2014 when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved Crestwood Midstream’s application to store methane at their facility near Seneca Lake. Since that time, hundreds of people have been arrested for acts of peaceful protest outside the gates of the facility.

They are protesting because methane, butane and propane—often misleadingly called “natural” gases—are not substances that they want to be injected at high pressures into the unlined salt caverns next to Seneca Lake. There are several reasons why doing this is a bad idea, the main one being that these substances leak.

When methane is inserted into natural underground caverns like the ones in the Finger Lakes region, it has a propensity to travel through cracks in the underground rock in a process known as methane migration. This may lead to buildings that are miles away from the storage sites accumulating pools of odorless methane and exploding with no apparent warning.

There is also the risk that the gases will leak into the watershed. Seneca Lake provides drinking water for over 100,000 people and the area’s main economic engines are the tourist industry that relies on the beauty of the lake and the wineries that depend on its plentiful, clean water. The geological barriers between the salt caverns and the lake are not well understood and the potential for groundwater to be polluted is more than likely substantial.

Additionally, leakage from methane storage facilities into the atmosphere is now understood to be a serious contributor to climate change. Methane is 84 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide for its first 20 years in the atmosphere, so any atmospheric release has a substantial impact.

These are the threats that brought the protesters of We Are Seneca Lake to the gates of Crestwood Midstream’s facility. They are convinced that the threat to their community and their planet is real and they are willing to take radical action to oppose it. In a civil society, people in this position must be allowed to take action without undue risk to their safety. History has shown that laws and policies can be dangerous and wrong and without the ability to take peaceful, radical action, conscientious citizens have no avenue to draw attention to their concerns.

We Are Seneca Lake is performing acts of peaceful civil disobedience because there are no other avenues of objection available to them. Such actions are absolutely essential in a democracy and the disgraceful actions of the Reading officials violate not only the laws of civility, but also the basic principles of our society.

Sharapova incident innocent, misunderstood mistake

Russian tennis player Maria Sharapova spoke at a press conference in Los Angeles on March 7. Before the conference, rumors circulated that Sharapova may announce her retirement. Instead, Sharapova disclosed that she failed a drug test at the Australian Open in January.

ESPN reported that Sharapova said the medication meldonium caused her failed test. She explained that she did not check to see if meldonium was on the updated banned substance list sent out by the World Anti-Doping Agency in December and that she had been taking the drug for approximately 10 years to combat a myriad of health issues including signs of diabetes and irregular echocardiography exams. Meldonium is a banned substance because it can “aid oxygen uptake and endurance” for healthy subjects.

WADA only banned meldonium as of January 1—the same month of Sharapova’s failed test. She also expressed how saddened she was that she had let her sport and fans down.

Even though Sharapova has been honest about her test, many have been highly critical of her actions. It appears that Sharapova, however, never intended to gain an advantage on her competitors throughout the decade in which she took meldonium for health reasons. In her case, the crime committed was only one of carelessness.

The blame cannot be placed solely on Sharapova––professional athletes rely on their teams to make inquiries on their behalf. Her failure to check the list is unacceptable, but this oversight cannot be confused with Sharapova intentionally taking performance-enhancing drugs. Sharapova’s reputable brand is something she has spent years creating. It seems unlikely that she would intentionally break a rule set by WADA that would result in the destruction of her career.

Fellow professional tennis players have spoken out in support of Sharapova. According to FOX Sports, Serena Williams was very respectful when she addressed her rival’s situation. “[Sharapova] was upfront and very honest and showed a lot of courage to admit to what she had done and what she had neglected to look at,” Williams said. These words regarding Sharapova’s character—especially coming from an opponent—indicate that this scandal can be reduced to a simple oversight.

Sharapova posted on Facebook that she looked forward to giving her “detailed medical records” to the International Tennis Federation. CBS News confirmed that the ITF will decide the consequences for Sharapova’s failed test. While former WADA president Dick Pound explained that Sharapova could face up to a four year suspension, a yearlong suspension is probably a more appropriate penalty for Sharapova’s negligence. The time away would not decimate her career, but would allow her to take responsibility for her actions.

Sharapova’s compliance with the ITF and her openness regarding her failed drug test show that she has acknowledged her wrongdoings. According to the evidence thus far, Sharapova and her support team are only guilty of being negligent. It would be a shame if this simple mistake will bring Sharapova’s iconic 15-year career to a controversial close.

Kardashian nude photo does not deserve feminist backlash

Kim Kardashian caused her latest Instagram-based publicity frenzy by posting a nude photo of herself on March 7. The mirror selfie—expertly captioned “When you’re like I have nothing to wear LOL”—caused an immediate and overwhelming amount of backlash from both Instagram users and outraged female celebrities.

Kardashian posted the year-old selfie in response to the increasing number of comments about her weight gain during her pregnancy. Despite Kardashian’s efforts to censor body parts that may have offended the general public, it wasn’t enough to satisfy many outraged women.

One would expect a large amount of ignorant comments and misogynist responses from anonymous Twitter and Instagram users, but much of the negative feedback came from female celebrities who felt that Kardashian’s Instagram post was anti-feminist.

For instance, actress Chloë Grace Moretz tweeted, “I truly hope you realize how important setting goals are for young women, teaching them we have so much more to offer than just our bodies.” Singer Bette Midler tweeted a more aggressive criticism, writing, “If Kim wants us to see a part of her we’ve never seen, she’s gonna have to swallow the camera.”

While the 19-year-old Moretz may have been well-intentioned in her critique, both her and Midler’s responses share the same kind of harmful, conservative rhetoric that was prominent in early forms of feminism. Although feminism is entirely subjective, it is objectively harmful to shame women for making any kind of choices regarding their own bodies.

In an attempt to empower women, this kind of feminism focuses on issues such as putting women in the workforce, giving them political power and having women join the ranks of men. In doing so, many second-wave feminists may criticize women for being openly sexual and showing off their bodies––arguing that this only furthers the way men view women as sexual objects. Oftentimes this brand of thinking equates modesty with respectability.

This ideology, however, perpetuates the kind of slut-shaming that Kardashian faced. While I agree with Moretz in her belief that women are more than just their bodies, she is reinforcing the harmful idea that women can only be respectable when covered up. It is extremely damaging for her to claim that Kardashian cannot be a role model for young women simply because she is proud of her body and is not afraid of her own sexuality.

By choosing to post pictures of their own naked bodies, Kardashian and other women are reclaiming their own sexuality. In being proud of their naked bodies and openly sexual, women are able to combat slut-shaming and the idea that women must be modest or that our bodies are shameful things that should only be used for sex.

This is not to say that Kardashian is a feminist icon just because of her Instagram post. She and her family are constantly criticized for their problematic views regarding sexism, transphobia, racism and other issues. Kardashian, however, has every right to show off whatever parts of her body she pleases without being attacked by women who claim to be feminists.

Geneseo must prioritize sustainability in near future

Since the beginning of the semester, students have received emails from Geneseo Strategic Planning Group encouraging them to provide input for the Strategic Plan 2021. Unfortunately, the crucial concept of sustainability has been almost entirely overlooked in this process thus far.

The source of the issue is twofold. Both students and the administration have demonstrated a good deal of apathy in the face of our present environmental crisis and both will need to step up in order to fight abstraction and to work for concrete solutions. The first step to solving any problem, of course, is devising a plan.

Three of the six digital polls distributed by the Strategic Planning Group do reference sustainability on campus. The Week One poll is focused on mission, values and vision statements. Sustainability is included as one of the 12 possible values, from which polltakers are instructed to choose and rank five. When sustainability is in competition with vague but admirable goals like “excellence” and “integrity,” however, sustainability does not really stand a chance. Similarly, the Week Six poll lists implementing sustainable practices as just one of 13 diverse and important ways Geneseo can promote the public good.

Week Two concentrates on resilience and includes the eGarden and Microgrid projects. These options present the opposite problem in that they are far too specific. If the still-in-the-proposal-stage, little-known Microgrid project were replaced with a more comprehensive option for “renewable energy,” perhaps the results would better reflect how many students actually care about climate change mitigation and clean energy efforts.

The nonexistent presence of sustainability in the posted drafts of the new mission, values and vision statements is at least as revealing as their limited presence in the polls. That the Strategic Planning Group completed these drafts before the polls even opened seems to assume a certain level of student apathy or silent consent and is out of step with a truly participatory, democratic process.

On the other hand, students have effectively confirmed these assumptions, with only a few hundred participating in the polls at all despite receiving at least a dozen emails about them since the beginning of the semester. Faculty and administration have also overwhelmingly dominated the open forums.

It is up to concerned students to express that simply having an Office of Sustainability and a Sustainability Statement is not enough. The central mission, values and vision of the school need to prioritize meeting green energy goals if there is to be hope of reaching the already stated objectives of resilience, innovation and civic responsibility. Relegating sustainability to a special interest is akin to ignoring it.

If more students were actively participating in the Strategic Plan conversation, I am confident that sustainability and relevant goals would rank much higher. This is why Green Environmental Organization president senior Julia Mizutani, fellow GEO executive board member junior Sarah Kowalski and I have collaborated on a letter asking for the support of students and others in prioritizing sustainability efforts over the next five years and beyond.

I encourage everyone who desires a sustainable future to sign the letter, take the polls before they close on Monday March 28, express support for green projects in the comment sections and spread the word. If we work together to make our voices heard, 2021 can be a checkpoint on the way to a climate-conscious, clean energy future.

Baseball game disrespects victims of Castro regime

Accompanied by President Barack Obama, the Tampa Bay Rays recently traveled to Cuba to play against the Cuban national team. According to ESPN, it is only the second time a Major League Baseball team has traveled to Cuba since 1959. The visit is being hailed as a victory for “baseball diplomacy” between the nations.

American media outlets have praised Cuban officials for opening the country’s doors to MLB, and the Obama administration expressed optimism about baseball forming a connection between the two different countries. Some critics, however, believe that this baseball game symbolically erases the violent and turbulent historical relationship between the United States and Cuba.

Sports journalist Dan Le Batard—the son of Cuban refugees—wrote an poignant editorial for ESPN about how the optimism surrounding the recent game disrespects the experiences of Cuban citizens and refugees under Cuba’s communist regime. Le Batard describes the hardships his parents endured in Cuba before their difficult exile to the U.S. and how his community is not moved by the attempts to reconcile with Cuba’s harmful dictator. The oppressed individuals who fled Cuba years ago hoped major changes would be made in a more significant and proactive form than a baseball game.

In addition to the U.S., the Cuban government sees this game as a win. Baseball is a beloved pastime in the country akin to America’s love of football. The positive reaction to the game does just what Le Batard condemns: legitimizing the continuation of Raul Castro’s regime. The game may be described as “putting differences aside,” but that is not enough in the face of brutal history and its ongoing legacy.

The U.S. and MLB have their own history of causing tension in Caribbean and Latin American countries. The lavish training academies in the Dominican Republic, Venezuela and other countries often exploit young players with dreams of playing on MLB teams. Without proper education to fall back on, players who don’t make the cut often struggle to find other work in their native countries.

It isn’t a surprise that “baseball diplomacy” is marketed as a way to reconcile an unstable relationship between the U.S. and Cuba when surveying MLB’s relationships with other countries. Hopefully, more figures will recognize the symbolic meaning of the Tampa Bay Rays game and be open to hold a real conversation about Cuba’s history.

Kesha ruling perpetuates rape culture in music industry

One of the most important and controversial sexual assault cases in recent years has many music fans and feminists in an outcry over the United States’ flawed and problematic justice system. As previously discussed in an Arts & Entertainment article in the Nov. 6, 2015 issue of The Lamron, pop singer Kesha is still fighting a losing battle against her producer and alleged sexual assaulter Lukasz “Dr. Luke” Gottwald.

Kesha filed a lawsuit against Gottwald in October 2014 seeking to void contracts with the producer and Sony Music, which would allow the singer to record independently with other labels. The singer claims Gottwald sexually and emotionally abused her throughout the 10+ years they worked together.

The New York Supreme Court denied the injunction on Friday Feb. 19, finding Kesha to be “free” to record independently—even under her current Sony Music contracts. New York Supreme Court Justice Shirley Kornreich said she would “do the commercially reasonable thing” in supporting the music industry with her ruling. After the ruling, Gottwald’s attorney claimed Kesha’s sexual assault accusations were untrue attempts to publicly defame the producer.

This case’s ruling sets a dangerous precedent for women in the music industry and for all future sexual assault cases. Not only does the ruling explicitly state that the music industry’s interest should come before the safety of an alleged victim of sexual assault, but the alleged abuser’s attorney also publicly shamed the alleged victim. These cases are serious issues when multi-million dollar contracts are at stake, but in no way should an alleged victim’s safety and mental health be compromised in favor of their alleged abuser’s career and reputation.

Kornreich’s claim that Kesha is “free” to record independently under her current contracts can be contested. Kesha’s attorney Mark Geragos claimed that under her current contracts, Kesha could technically produce music without Gottwald, but two of the producer’s companies would directly profit off her music. No matter whom Kesha works with, Gottwald would still have an influence and affiliation with her career and profits under the current contracts. Kesha does not want to be affiliated with her alleged abuser in any way.

This is a textbook case of how rape culture permeates our institutions and makes it nearly impossible for alleged sexual assault victims to be believed. One of the most troubling claims from Gottwald’s attorney is how the lack of physical evidence and initial report of rape somehow proves Kesha is lying. Sexual assault is seriously underreported because of fear, power dynamics with abusers, personal shame and the high potential of victim-blaming. The Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network notes that 68 percent of sexual assaults are not reported to police and that 98 percent of rapists will never serve time in prison or jail.

Kesha’s alleged abuser is a rich and powerful figure in the music industry; how could she build a case against someone who controls her career and reputation and had this influence on her from a young age? As we now see after the ruling, Kesha cannot compete against the music industry’s giants.

This case is complicated and goes deeper than just one person. The court ruled in favor of a capitalist and exploitative industry at the expense of an alleged victim—in turn supporting the case of an attorney who publicly defamed and blamed the alleged victim. This case also addresses the complexity of a victim needing forensic evidence for undeniable proof of assault.

The support that Kesha has received from fans and fellow celebrities is encouraging, but the ruling has already set our country back decades on the road to help sexual assault victims. Hopefully, the next step in the process will see justice for Kesha against cruel and unmerited institutions that want to silence victims.