Subtext in childcare posters promotes pro-life agenda

You might have recently seen a poster around campus discussing the necessity for childcare on campus for student parents. I want to draw attention to how these seemingly well-intentioned and non-controversial demands indirectly support the pro-life anti-abortion movement.

The poster states, “They say I have a free choice, but without housing on campus for me and my baby, without on-site daycare, without maternity coverage in my health insurance, it sure doesn’t feel like I have much of a choice.” It goes on to discuss how Feminists for Life—likewise endorsed in Sharpie on the poster by Students for Life at Geneseo—hopes to secure “non-violent choices for women.”

These are mostly non-controversial opinions at face value; everyone knows that pregnancy can delay progress in one’s education and career. There are few policies in place to help mothers in this respect—you would be hard-pressed to find a feminist who doesn’t think that women should be able to raise children without worrying about daycare, health coverage and housing. The problem is not in the proposal itself, but in the subtext of the proposal.

The subtext of the argument is as follows: abortion is immoral. At present, women opt for abortion when they are left with no perceived choice in the matter. If women had a fuller range of choices—such as having daycare available at their university—they would not have to opt for an “immoral” choice such as abortion. So, we should institute these policies in order to decrease the rate at which women must choose such an immoral option, thereby eliminating the need and justification for abortion.

This subtextual argument is apparently not obvious to most people, just as many insidious pro-life tactics do not immediately seem pro-life on the surface. Many of the “pregnancy resource centers” run with pro-life agendas make their pamphlets and marketing nearly indistinguishable from those of Planned Parenthood. These tactics are deceitful and exploitative of those who are already in a vulnerable position.

Pro-life groups are in the business of rhetorical manipulation. The proposals on their poster seem positive, but the poster’s implications are considerably more dubious. It is important to remember that expanding choices in one area does not compensate for the obliteration of another choice: the choice to have an abortion.

Even if all of these policies were instituted—daycare at universities, housing for mothers and their children, maternity leave and so on—there would still be women who would not want to have a baby at all. She might not want to give up time she devotes to academics, athletics, activism, service or any other endeavor. The pro-choice movement wants to ensure that there are options for those who wish to be mothers and for those who do not wish to be mothers.

In debunking this poster by Students for Life, I speak as someone who is unwaveringly pro-choice. I also speak as someone who dislikes the manipulation tactics of the pro-life movement. As much as I wish for all women to have the right to choose, I wish for people—especially those on our campus—to know what they are supporting in addition to the policies on the poster when they support Students for Life.

This poster is a shameful attempt at conniving and deceit. It certainly makes you wonder about what they are hiding beneath all of that rhetoric.

Heteronormative sororities exclude gender-nonconforming students

Greek traditions are steeped in heteronormativity—the social rituals, the expectations of interactions with the opposite gender and expectations of dresses, heels and make-up. Though I fall somewhere in the middle of the suit-dress dichotomy, I know that I am not the first lesbian to rule out joining any sororities—even before college started—as a result of these expectations. But if I wanted to join a sorority and I were a butch woman whose primary formalwear were suits, where would this leave me?

I don’t mean to single out sororities—I address sororities because they codify what is to be worn at certain times and events. More systemically, women are affected by the strict yet open-ended nature of formalwear; men’s formalwear is far more lenient.

I think sororities offer excellent opportunities for women with regards to both friendship and service. But I think that sororities being more superficially heteronormative is a result of the ridiculous, constant and contradictory demands placed on women. While I am sympathetic to this, it is not an excuse.

I would like to know how sororities would feel about a potential rush wearing a suit or tie to a formal event. How mandatory are heels, dresses and make-up? If different attire would make you uncomfortable, examine why that is. I am primarily asking about whether sororities are OK with women who do not look straight.

It’s not a surprise that Greek life is traditionally exclusionary. According to Harvard University’s Implicit Bias Project, the quick decisions made about people during rush week are often based on stereotypes and implicit bias. Applied to Greek life, these heuristics are probably why some groups are unintentionally exclusionary to gender non-conforming women.

You can go to Safe Zone Trainings, avoid homophobic jokes and openly support the LGBTQ+ community, but if you want your sorority to be intentionally diverse and inclusive, you need to reconsider whether your group’s norms and traditions allows for gender non-conformity.

Letting go of some exclusionary traditions does not entail the end of Greek life. Though Greek life might be overwhelmingly accepting of diversity, groups and individuals, they—perhaps unintentionally—perpetuate the homophobia implicit in certain traditions. There are unspoken party “ratios” that exclude lesbians, commoditize straight women and place bisexual and pansexual women somewhere in-between.

Giving up traditions from which you benefit from is admittedly uncomfortable. But sororities—especially those that are well-known and respected—could pave the way for other sororities by choosing to value diversity and inclusion. Sororities offer incredible opportunities that ought to be available to anyone who is interested.

Do not wait to be a change agent until another sorority starts admitting gender non-conforming women—as a few on our campus have already done. Do not wait for a butch woman to come to you and wonder whether or not she will be immediately excluded on the basis of her appearance—no one wants to be on either side of that.

If diversity is important to you, examine your organization’s held biases that have excluded gender non-conforming women in the past. Then, send an active and clear message during rushing, a message stronger than “non-mandatory:” that you are accepting and supporting of all women, including those who don’t dress in traditionally feminine ways.

Lessons from Ferguson: racial “color-blindness” isn’t working

The battle for justice in Ferguson, Missouri is far from over. The public is awaiting the grand jury decision regarding whether white police officer Darren Wilson will be charged in the shooting of teenager Michael Brown. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency on Monday Nov. 17, meaning that the National Guard could be called at any time in case unrest would follow the decision. Ferguson activists have been protesting Brown’s death and other incidents of racist police brutality during the last several months. Nixon’s decision to call for a state of emergency is in obvious anticipation of Wilson’s return to the police department, which would represent a continued attack on black life in America. Giving this situation the attention it deserves and creating productive dialogue requires a radical change in the way racial relations are discussed in America.

Color-blindness isn’t working for America. Racial color-blindness is the idea that we are all the same regardless of race so we ought not to acknowledge race at all. This is good only in theory. In a social and historical context devoid of Jim Crow, centuries of racial discrimination and the continued perpetuation of stereotypes, racial color-blindness would work well because racial differences genuinely would not matter.

But our history of slavery is not far behind us; stereotypes and prejudices still persist. It is evident in the way the media reports events like Ferguson. White criminals are often remembered fondly, even romanticized––see Charles Manson’s cult of personality––whereas black victims are portrayed as “thugs.” When the possibility of racial bias is brought up, hasty cries of “race card” instead of giving the possibility serious consideration make racial prejudice evident.

These reactions might be a result of reluctance—or even negligence—to examine one’s own biases. But often, we are not even aware of these biases. Well-meaning people tout color-blindness as the path to equality, but ignoring race does little to further tolerance or to break down implicit biases. Implicit biases are ones that we are not aware of, yet most people possess—even those who actively reject prejudices. They must be accounted for in order to have a productive discussion regarding racism, or any –ism for that matter.

Implicit Association Tests help to uncover implicit biases so one can work to override the social desirability bias eminent in self-reporting. They work by showing our biases before they get to the point of cognitive processing. This is what separates most well-intentioned people—who are in all likelihood at least somewhat racist—from those who are explicitly racist. But because we absorb these biases, they come out in other ways; from where people sit to how doctors give medical treatment.

Experts on implicit bias suggest surrounding yourself with positive images with people from different minority groups or approaching people you might not have otherwise approached, especially when you sense the initial distaste. It’s intuitive—it essentially does the opposite of what caused the implicit bias to exist in the first place. Most importantly, it makes you more likely to be perceptive and critical of the borderline-explicit biases you see in coverage like that in Ferguson.

We are bombarded with negative associations of marginalized people, so it makes sense that doing just the opposite would correct this. There’s a reason we don’t notice it in the first place. Being “politically correct” is correcting what you have incorrectly internalized and creating a better and more egalitarian world for it. Who wouldn’t want that?

Despite progress, mental illness stigma persists

In the last several years, I have noticed an increasing number of discussions surrounding mental illness. There is no doubt that stigma still exists, but I think, at least among young adults, it is less taboo to talk about it. This is unsurprising considering how common mental illness is and the efforts that have been made to share narratives and raise awareness. But this does not mean that there is not work still to be done. Fighting stigma is not just talking about it, it requires genuinely changing how you look at and interact with people who have a mental illness.

Just like overcoming any other implicit bias like racism or sexism, overcoming biases against people with mental illnesses requires a lot of work. Campaigns that aim to disprove myths about mental illness are a good start; these efforts lay out the facts, probe the public to examine their own biases and––perhaps most importantly––get people talking. But it is one thing to make a Facebook status about ending stigma or agreeing that yes, stigma is bad and based on incorrect stereotypes. It is another thing to put those beliefs into action.

I have seen people who are of the former category—they are self-aware of their biases and they know the stereotypes are wrong—who still find it OK to refer to someone who is obviously suffering as “crazy” or “psychotic.” Usually this isn’t a far-removed celebrity like Demi Lovato or Robin Williams, but someone they are relatively close to and, in most cases, someone who has irritated them in one way or another.

I want to ask these people, “Why, then, can you apply these ideas abstractly but not to people you actually know?” This is not to say that every bad thing a person with mental illness does must be excused by mental illness. It means not making fun of those who have trouble expressing themselves in class due to social anxiety––that’s just rude behavior anyway––or not calling your friend a flake if she keeps canceling on you because her seasonal depression has been difficult.

If someone with mental illness wrongs you in one way or another, it doesn’t mean you can call him or her crazy—it means they did something harmful. If they do it repeatedly, whether or not they are “psychotic” is probably not for you to determine. The stereotype that people with mental illness are violent is perpetuated enough as it is.

You do not get points for being progressive and fighting stigma when you only apply those principles when it is convenient for you. It is easy to say that depressed people aren’t just lazy or that people with bipolar disorder deserve sympathy. It is easy to do this when you are presented with an inspirational success story. It is even easy to say this of someone like Amanda Bynes who doesn’t affect your life.

It is much harder when it directly affects you, but the work of learning, unlearning and applying these ideas is conducive to larger change. It is really worrisome to hear psychology majors say that someone “needs to seek psychological help” when he or she says something ridiculous. I make a habit of assuming good intentions, but casual ableism is common; there are not as many people who are willing to do the unlearning as there are people who are willing to make a statement when it is convenient for them.

What actually ignites change is applying these ideas when you make judgments about people at their worst—when you understand that mental illness is just as legitimate as physical illness and that people suffering from any sort of disability deserve reasonable accommodations. No one chooses to be sick. Do the work to learn and unlearn and the world—or at least your circle of friends—will be better for it.

Why “choice feminism” warrants a critical eye

There is no one definition of feminism; most feminists have, very loosely, the same goals, but some definitions are better than others. Some define it as equality between all genders (quite vague, but sure), liberation from oppression, among others. Once in particular is very common in mainstream discourse, and that is for women to be able to choose whatever they want from among various choices. Defining feminism as women having access to more choices, without going into what that entails, has serious implications that are far less feminist than they initially appear. Feminism defined as women being able to choose whatever they want is nice. I say “nice” because it sounds great—what isn’t awesome about women having more options considering how limited choices have been in the past? To some extent, it is a good thing. But what often gets overlooked with what is referred to as choice feminism is its deeply individualistic nature. What is a feminist glass-ceiling shattering victory for one woman can, in many cases, hurt many more women as a result.There is no one definition of feminism; most feminists have, very loosely, the same goals, but some definitions are better than others. Some define it as equality between all genders (quite vague, but sure), liberation from oppression, among others. Once in particular is very common in mainstream discourse, and that is for women to be able to choose whatever they want from among various choices. Defining feminism as women having access to more choices, without going into what that entails, has serious implications that are far less feminist than they initially appear.

This is especially evident when we look at reactions to women going into office (there will potentially be 100 women in the United States Congress as of the midterm elections), or women gaining high-power positions in major companies. And it’s wonderful that some women—the most privileged ones, namely—have these options now. But ultimately, I am far more concerned with the quality of a woman’s choice than with the fact that a woman is making that choice.

Clickhole—a satirical website affiliated with The Onion—posted a particularly cogent article entitled “7 Female CEOs Who Inspire Us All To Be Cogs In The Capitalist Machine.” The title says it all. One point reads: “PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi is living proof of the fact that when we are complicit in an economic system that rewards the wealthy and further impoverishes the poor, there’s no limit to what we can accomplish!”

While it is, of course, satirical, the article makes some serious commentary. A woman being in power is great, but from a feminist perspective, it really isn’t very great if, as a result of their actions, women are being overworked in sweatshops, or forced into poverty.

Case-in-point: a feminist t-shirt—sported by Emma Watson in Elle UK magazine—was recently discovered to have been made in a sweatshop where female workers suffer formidable conditions and measly pay. One worker said, “How can this T-shirt be a symbol of feminism when we do not see ourselves as feminists? We see ourselves as trapped.” Evidently, the mainstream movement is limited in who gets represented.

The individual successes that we celebrate as feminist victories often yield not-so-feminist effects. The marginalized women in the sweatshops, being struck by drones in the Middle East (see: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) or being denied a living wage are an afterthought. These liberal feminist “victories” largely belong to the most privileged women in our society, which is often the case with any civil rights struggle.

The response from those who are unsympathetic to feminism often involves the utterly unpredictable, “It could be worse—look at x and y country!” In addition to being fallacious (it doesn’t make this situation any better), it isn’t as if these opponents actually care about those women so much as they care about refuting feminists, period.

My intention is not to say that it is a bad thing for women to have more choices—this would be completely misconstruing my position. My intention is that, as women gain more choices, we should celebrate these victories while also being critical of whether the outcome is good for women or if it’s just good for a woman.

Face-Off: Affirmative Consent

Jessica Heppler

With many universities updating their sexual misconduct policies to include affirmative consent, everyone has something to say about why it is wrong, from students to Harvard Law School professors. But most of these criticisms are unfounded, primarily due to serious misconceptions. My primary concerns are about criticisms that all sex will inevitably be classified as rape under such a mandate or that such a policy undermines due process. The former misconstrues affirmative consent and the latter is based on serious misunderstandings regarding how “due process” translates from courts to schools.

According to the uniform State University of New York definition of consent, affirmative consent “can be given by words or actions, as long as those words or actions create mutually understandable clear permission regarding willingness to engage in (and the conditions of) sexual activity.” Opponents dissent, “What counts as consent? Won’t it make sex unnatural and unsexy, or does this mean every sexual encounter without this will be rape?”

Many fear that this new definition, “yes means yes” instead of “no means no” puts a large burden on the accused. Slate’s Amanda Marcotte explained that such a policy will not matter for the majority of sexual activity, but when there is a sexual assault reported, it will make sure the most relevant questions are asked. Instead of asking what she (victims are mostly female) was wearing, it will be more important to ask if and how consent was given or expressed.

And yes, it does place the burden on the initiator. Some refer to it as “You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure” law. I am inclined to agree; it worries me that people are more concerned that the sex they are having will be non-consensual than they are about whether their partner is actually consenting. It is very easy to ask how your partner is feeling or if he or she is doing all right. It really isn’t that much of a buzzkill.

Another concern many people have about new sexual assault policies—like those at Harvard University—is that it will undermine due process insofar as sexual assault will require a “preponderance of evidence” rather than “clear and convincing evidence.” Using this to criticize sexual assault policies—at least at public schools—is something of a straw man argument. According to the Article 10, Volume 53 of the Boston College Law Review “The Process That is Due…,” Lavinia M. Weizel explains why the preponderance of evidence is adequate for sexual assault complaints in the university.

Federal courts have upheld the need for university disciplinary hearings to be more informal than court hearings. This essentially means that whoever decides must not sanction students based on less than probable facts.

Moreover, that private interests are at stake is crucial to the “preponderance” requirement as well. Clear and convincing evidence is necessary only when civil liberties are at stake, like permanent civil commitments or denaturalization. The preponderance is usually used in civil rights cases; sexual assault falls under this category. The article goes on to explain how this upholds due process for both the school and the accused. If someone has an issue with the “preponderance” requirement, it is not a sexual assault issue. This is the case for almost all disciplinary hearings in a university setting.

While 28 Harvard Law professors may have signed a letter indicting this policy, there are 122 total. Ultimately, new sexual assault policies have been subject to unfair criticisms and straw man arguments. Worries about affirmative consent are not totally unfounded, but they––and different clauses meant to protect all involved parties—are highly misconstrued. Interpreting these policies more charitably is required for a more robust understanding of why they are in place and who is being protected.

Grant Kusick

Hardly anyone is satisfied with the current state of sexual misconduct policies in place at universities around the country. There are those who believe that administrations do not do nearly enough to protect students or pursue justice for victims. This is understandable, given the long and sordid tradition of schools hushing up rape accusations to protect their own interests.

There are others, however—myself included—who are concerned that many sexual misconduct policies violate the most fundamental principles of due process. Introduced in July, Harvard University’s new sexual assault policy typifies the move toward ensuring swift expulsion. Everything from investigation to sentencing is handled privately within the Title IX office. Accused rapists do not have access to legal counsel or representation if they cannot afford it. Accusers may not be cross-examined. To top it off, the standard of proof required for conviction has been moved from “clear and convincing evidence” to a “preponderance of evidence”—a more than 50 percent chance of guilt.

In response, 28 Harvard Law School faculty members and emeriti signed a letter calling upon the university to withdraw the new misconduct policy. “As teachers responsible for educating our students about due process of law …we find the new sexual harassment policy inconsistent with many of the most basic principles we teach,” they said.

The new policy reflects the pervasive idea that because of the emotionally harrowing nature of rape and entanglement in structural gender inequality, rape must be prosecuted differently than any other crime. Many sexual assault victims have been silenced by administrations in an effort to save face. Harvard’s response is to do away with cross-examination and any honest attempt to verify claims. The intent is to protect victims, but the result is a complete inversion of the American legal process.

The letter continues, “The goal must not be simply to go as far as possible in the direction of preventing anything that some might characterize as sexual harassment.” With respect to cases where determining consent is difficult and inebriation is involved, Harvard’s new policy is actually not that extreme. It lacks an “affirmative consent” clause, which the forthcoming State University of New York policy includes.

Colloquially known as “yes means yes,” affirmative consent encourages people to give strong signals and respect their partner’s wishes. This is an important step forward in the sexual culture of campus life. As a legal standard, however, it is incredibly worrying. Cathy Young of The Daily Beast notes, “Yes means yes shifts the burden of proof to the accused, which fundamentally conflicts with the presumption of innocence.”

Much of the new approach to consent and to what constitutes sexual assault is necessary and just. But the amount of grey area involved makes adjudication complicated. An approach that keeps students safe and guarantees fair treatment for both victims and the accused is necessarily more complicated. It requires the participation of legal scholars, such as those at Harvard, who have been unnerved by recent trends and left out of the process. They recognize that it is unacceptable to address the injustice of rape and gender inequity by compromising our most fundamental principles of justice.

Dear U.S., Malala Yousafzai is not your political puppet

America has a way of rewriting history––perhaps this is true for anyone in power. It is rare to see history rewritten as it occurs, but this is more than evident in the United States’ support for Malala Yousafzai, who recently became the youngest person to win the Nobel Peace Prize. The White House remains mum on her anti-military stances while using her status as reason to support the very actions she publicly condemns. As a lifelong advocate for girls’ education, Yousafzai received international attention when she survived a gunshot wound to the head from the Taliban in 2012. Her willingness to speak out against the Taliban’s efforts to prevent girls from getting an education inspired much of the world—especially the Western world. As Yousafzai continued to gain traction as a public figure, it became clear where the media’s loyalties lie, especially those of the American government.

The 16-year-old Yousafzai confronted President Barack Obama about innocent Pakistani people being murdered by U.S. drone strikes in Oct. 2013. Obama remarked that it was––and is––a necessary strategy against the Taliban. Rather than using military action that increases tensions, Yousafzai believes that the U.S. ought to focus their efforts on education.

While the U.S. continues to support Yousafzai’s opposition to the Taliban’s efforts to restrict girls’ education, they support this in isolation from her more radical views. Their silence surrounding these views—especially those advocating socialism—illuminate the politics implicit in their support of the young woman.

Her opposition to the Taliban makes her an ideal poster-child for the U.S.’ drone strikes, showing that if a young Pakistani girl can display such courage, attacking the Taliban by any means necessary is, of course, a worthy cause.

And indeed it is—Yousafzai, coined “The Bravest Girl in the World,” is an activist for education, but she is much more. No one is obliged to agree with all of the politics of every person they support, but given her opposing views the U.S. cannot in good faith use Yousafzai’s celebrity status as pro-military propaganda.

Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was an advocate for racial equality, but he too was much more. Public schools emphasize his “I Have A Dream” speech, but this speech was a compromise of his more radical views—people often cite him when arguing that we should not focus on race in fighting racial equality.

He was an outspoken advocate for several issues that required discussion for progress. His Poor People’s Campaign emphasized the problems of classism in a particularly Marxist way. In “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” he expounds on non-violence tenant being less about total abstinence from violence than it was about showing why white moderates should call for justice rather than order. Civil rights activists’ use of peaceful methods made clear the violence perpetrated against them by their white oppressors. Those who evoke King for their own ideological ends—especially Republicans—perpetually decontextualize the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist stances he took.

This is what the American government is doing to Yousafzai: warping her ideals for their contrary agenda. Perhaps this is the reason so many Pakistanis resent Yousafzai. Al Jazeera’s Maham Javaid succinctly describes this problem as “the inability of Pakistanis to distinguish between Malala’s brave resolve to fight for what she believes in and the Western accolades she has received … Their base logic is that the enemy’s friend is my enemy.”

The problem is not picking and choosing, but the systematic erasure of what these oft-evoked political figures truly stand for. Yousafzai and King ought to be respected and acknowledged for what they have achieved. Decontextualizing their politics to suit agendas contrary to those they advocated for is dishonest historical erasure.

The cult of higher vocation

A rising culture of anti-intellectualism seems counterintuitive to the increasing numbers of students enrolling in college each year. Strangely enough, the rise of anti-intellectualism manifests itself in attitudes within and towards universities. Higher education is being vocationalized—as institutions of higher learning come to resemble businesses they become a streamline to the work force. This shift is idealized as a more effective post-secondary “education,” but in reality it harms students, faculty and businesses.

Since the mid-1900s, state funding and rising tuition costs have forced universities to focus their spending on endeavors to attract and keep students. Lavish facilities and sports teams take precedence over libraries and academic programs. All the while, college becomes increasingly unaffordable.

As a result, students—the consumers—are demanding that college be a streamline to the workforce in the face of rising tuition costs and an unstable job market (hence, the devaluation of the liberal arts). It requires far less imagination to see the practicality of a business, accounting or STEM degree, and that is precisely why vocationalization is wildly attractive.

Perhaps I am just a bitter philosophy major and the fact is that vocational majors are simply superior in that they are more lucrative than something like philosophy or English. But this isn’t necessarily the case.

PayScale College Salary Report shows the entry and mid-career salaries of those with bachelor’s degrees as their highest educational level. While engineering and other specific science majors fare the best, many allegedly “useless” majors like philosophy, English literature, and communication fare better in terms of mid-career salary in comparison to “practical” undergraduate majors like accounting, nursing and business administration. Philosophy and English are even above biology.

This report doesn’t count those who go on to graduate schools––it might be better that it does not. Higher education’s obsession with vocation does more than produce fallacious jokes about the English major serving fries. Between disproportionate funding and the need to attract consumers, adjunct professors bear the financial brunt. According to a 2013 report in The New York Times, 76 percent of college professors are without tenure. Many of these are adjuncts, who are paid by the course, meaning that much of their labor is essentially done for free. The fact that many professors must turn to public assistance reflects a broken system and a widespread devaluation of education.

The adjunct crisis affects students as well. Student feedback often plays a role in career trajectory for professors, especially adjuncts. According to former Duke University professor and creator of gradeinflation.com Stuart Rojstaczer, professors receive the best ratings for teaching to the test (making it easy to do well) and for entertaining students. Actual learning was not a factor, but the customer is always right.

Grades are a factor in the streamline to the workforce, giving students a sense of entitlement to good grades. The fetish of college as an extravagant vocational facility means that students are not receiving the best education possible, to no fault of professors whose livelihood depends on their positive ratings.

The cult of vocation forces universities to heed to the almighty dollar and so too faculty and students. Ironically, the National Association of Colleges and Employers did a study showing that the surveyed employers most value analytical and communication skills found in a liberal arts education.

This is not to disparage any choice of major, but rather the surrounding rhetoric which feeds into a problem beginning at the state level––a problem which largely benefits the state insofar as it creates a productive and utilitarian workforce.

If you ask me, the purpose of a liberal arts degree—and of college as a whole—is to develop the fundamental skills required to succeed in the workforce. Moreover, this type of education encourages creativity and innovation alongside universally valuable skills. Industrializing an entire generation will only discourage innovation and it will ultimately be to the chagrin of corporate America.

What's in a Facebook name

Gone are the days when Internet users were discouraged against revealing any personal information. In the coming weeks, Facebook is planning to suspend all accounts that do not use their “real” names. By “real name,” Facebook means that it must be the user’s name printed on a legal document, like a driver’s license or a credit card.

For many users, this will be a minor inconvenience, if not a non-issue altogether. For many more, especially in the LGBTQ-plus community, it will affect their safety, their business and their fan base. Facebook claims that this change will increase accountability and safety on the social network. Many more argue that this change has monetary motives.

For drag queens, who discussed the implications of the policy with Facebook, this means they will have to create a Page for their persona. As anyone who owns a Page knows, Facebook constantly reminds you of the dismal views and statistics that your page receives, and promises huge increases in views and likes if you are willing to pay.

Even after drag queens spoke with Facebook about how this would affect their business, Facebook promised only to reinstate those deactivated accounts when they decide to change their name or convert their profile to a Page, or else face suspension.

This policy, which professes to ensure a safe community, can be seriously imperiling for the transgender population. In certain states, the legal barriers to changing one’s name are lengthy and expensive, and even more difficult if someone is not out as transgender.

In some states, unless you are using hormone replacement therapy or undergoing sex reassignment surgery—which many transgender people do not want for a variety of reasons—you cannot get your sex marker changed. Judges can probe transgender people with invasive questions when they try to change their name, and this is to say nothing about the obstacle trans youths face if they are not out to their parents.

That many trans people—young and old—find solace in different Facebook communities behind the safety of their preferred name is reason enough not to go through with this ridiculous policy. Even more ridiculous is that Facebook recently added 58 different gender options in support of those who identify outside of the binary.

Not everyone has the means to get a legal name change, and the financial incentives of this policy overlook the potential consequences. Sister Roma, a member of a prominent drag group and outspoken advocate against this policy, was forced to change her name to one she had not used in nearly 30 years. In light of the violence transgender people often face, the potential consequences cannot be justified with “community accountability.”

For many people, their “real” name is not their legal name. Even Google knows this—after requiring legal names on Google+ starting in 2011, Google dropped the policy this past July in hopes of making its community as inclusive as possible. Facebook’s audacity to try this policy after it failed at Google+ is beyond me.

Ultimately, this policy is unnecessary in any context. If Facebook wants to remain relevant, then it should respect that people have good reasons for not wanting to deal with potential employers, students or distant relatives snooping. Putting users’ privacy above financial incentives might be a better long-term strategy, and it might behoove Facebook to keep that in mind.

Confronting our "liberal bias"

Why is The Lamron Opinion section so liberal? The short answer is that it is self-selecting. The long answer is a bit more complicated. The Opinion section consists of articles that deal with any timely current event or issue, whether on campus or off campus. It is necessary that some research go into the article since anything that is well-argued requires background knowledge and reputable sources to back it up.

Writers need a clear thesis and convincing arguments. That being said, if a writer has a particular view on any given event or issue and can argue it well, then that editorial will be considered for publication.

There is a liberal bias in the Opinion section. The nature of The Lamron, a completely student-run newspaper, is such that it is self-selecting. If you come to our meeting and find an editor of your chosen section, you can write.

Because most recruiting is done through e-mails and posters, we advertise to as wide an audience as possible. We are here to represent students and the entire spectrum of student views.

It is clear, however, that not all students’ views are represented in the Opinion section—namely, more conservative perspectives are missing. I have heard that some are under the impression that we are a liberal paper and have a liberal agenda, but this is simply not true.

Students’ intentional involvement creates the essence of the paper. If this were a generally conservative campus, this might be more of a conservative paper. This is, however, a largely liberal campus and it just so happens that those who write for the Opinion section hold liberal views.

This has been the case for at least the last two Opinion editors. Even when my predecessors have made recruitment efforts, their efforts were often futile. This is not to make any commentary on potential conservative writers, but it has been the case in the past. I can also see that perhaps because there has been such a lack of conservative opinion writers, potential writers have felt that this section might be alienating them.

Consider this my open invitation to writers of all viewpoints. The Lamron wants to represent as many student voices as possible and it is clear that we are not currently fulfilling this goal. We want to represent the student body of Geneseo and the only way this section will be less liberal is if there are fewer liberal writers, or rather, more conservative writers.

The Geneseo community wants to hear you because there is probably someone else who shares your view. Face-offs—where two writers broach the same topic from different viewpoints—make for an exciting issue. A greater variety in well-argued perspectives will invariably make for a stronger section.

I hope this makes it clear that my agenda for this section is neither my personal agenda, nor that of anyone else involved with The Lamron. My agenda as Opinion editor is good arguments––that’s it. If you want to discuss a current event or a more conceptual, albeit timely issue, you should come to a meeting and propose that idea. I am more than happy to listen.

The case for a living wage

Protesters across the country are joining the “Fight for $15” movement, demanding a living wage for fast-food workers. With cities such as Seattle putting plans in motion for a $15/hour minimum wage, these demands are not far-fetched. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25; in New York, it is $8.00. In Irondequoit, New York, protesters are demanding a $15 minimum wage.

The minimum wage was originally created to protect workers by guaranteeing them a minimum standard of living. Today, this is not the case.

McDonald’s has a hotline to help employees sign up for food stamps and welfare and the hotline specifically encourages full-time employees to sign up for public assistance. A minimum wage—which ought to be a living wage—would not put increasingly productive full-time workers below the poverty line and on public assistance.

The minimum wage in NY is set to increase to $9.00 by 2016, but that is not enough. The Center for Economic Policy & Research found that if minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would have been $9.22 in 2012. If minimum wage had kept up with worker productivity, it would have been $21.72/hour.

For comparison, the Economic Policy Institute found that CEO compensation––adjusted for inflation––had increased 937 percent from 1978 to 2013 as compared to a 10.2 percent increase in the typical worker.

Corporations can take steps to ensure that their employees—especially those working full-time—receive a living wage, many of which can learn something from Starbucks. When the company raised prices by 1 percent last year, they still saw a 25 percent increase in profit.

Likewise, a group of professional economists supported a Florida proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.50, estimating that fast food business costs would rise by approximately 2.7 percent.

To put this in perspective, McDonald’s could cover more than half of these extra costs by raising the price of a Big Mac from $4.00 to a reasonable $4.05.

In light of this, we must end the falsehood that young adults can someday laugh in the faces of their less intelligent peers working at McDonalds; CNN Money reported that 260,000 college graduates were working minimum wage jobs in 2013.

Whether or not those working minimum-wage jobs are underemployed does not undermine the fact that the minimum wage as it stands, is not a living wage.

Concerns about raising the minimum wage are not meritless. It is for this reason that cities like Seattle plan to incorporate a higher minimum wage over several years. Critics should note that a recent study by the Center for Economic Policy and Research found that job creation was faster in states that raised the minimum wage in January 2014.

The continued devaluation of service work is not an incentive for young adults to do better or aim higher; it is harmful rhetoric that reinforces the belief that service workers do not deserve a living wage. This group is increasingly comprised of adults who must feed their families and pay their bills, not high school students who are looking for extra money.

A call for a living wage on a federal or corporate level is not a sign of laziness, entitlement or incompetence. It is a reflection of inflating corporate salaries, state negligence to adjust the minimum wage for productivity and inflation and an increasingly devalued working class.

Rise in police brutality puts future of activism at stake

Social media has played a vital role in spreading important and accurate information about the protests in Ferguson, Missouri. In light of the Ferguson Police Department’s use of excessive force against protestors, I have concerns about the proliferation of activism through social media, or “hashtag activism.”

The slaying of an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, by a white police officer has sparked various important discussions, but not without the Ferguson Police Department’s significant—and often unconstitutional––efforts to suppress dissent and information. In light of this, many millennials looked to Twitter for accurate information from the protesters themselves. Major news outlets often focused unfairly on the few looting and violent protestors. Meanwhile, Ferguson protestors tweeted pictures and written accounts of the police arresting journalists, using tear gas and employing excessive force.

In this capacity, Internet activism has played an imperative role in spreading information. I applaud Internet activism for its power to spread information that one might have never known otherwise. My own introduction to social justice issues was online. For many, however, this education ends here, much to the satisfaction of those hoping to quell dissent.

The countless constitutional violations by the Ferguson Police Department are a separate discussion, but this gross overreaction and excessive use of force is what I fear will result in a world where it is only acceptable to protest online. A look at President Barack Obama’s Twitter account shows several instances of hashtags being used to support a particular event or movement; recall First Lady Michelle Obama’s iconic photo of her holding a piece of paper reading “#BringBackOurGirls.” The hashtag represented a demand to return the hundreds of Nigerian girls kidnapped by the Islamist militant group Boko Haram.

Looking beyond the potential to reach millennials, I worry that hashtag activism will become a model example of “peaceful protest,” thereby portraying offline protests as more violent and thus making offline protests more dangerous. After all, if our president chooses to make an important political statement via Twitter, surely we are also making an important political statement by tweeting our support. In regards to Ferguson, Obama stated, “While I understand the passions and the anger that arise over the death of Michael Brown, giving into that anger by looting or carrying guns, and even attacking the police, only serves to raise tensions and stir chaos. It undermines rather than advancing justice.” Obama’s decision to focus on the few violent protesters and ignore the violence perpetrated by the police is telling.

There are few options left for citizens to advance justice if they cannot protest a violent and racist police force. Moreover, I am not sure that there is thing as a protest in response to injustice—even a completely peaceful one—that does not raise tensions. If we compare Internet activism—a hashtag, a shared link, or a message of support—to any protest, it is inevitable that any protest, no matter how peaceful, will be guilty of raising tensions.

I fear that this shift in perspective will cause an increase in overreactions to largely peaceful protests such as that in Ferguson. I am not concerned with laziness; I am worried about the freedom to assemble. Moreover, with increased surveillance on the part of the National Security Agency, I am worried that the freedom to assemble will be halted before protestors can gather and even attempt to enact change.

Our government will never need to call the National Guard because of thousands of tweets but if offline protesters organize online, the National Guard might be there before the protesters even arrive.

Phoenix police profiling targets trans women, sex workers

Police profiling is often discussed in the context of racial profiling, but police profiling is even more prevalent for transgender individuals of color. Transgender women of color are often profiled simply for going about daily activities – in Phoenix, they are often profiled on the basis of prostitution while doing no such thing. Monica Jones, a prominent transgender advocate and a woman of color, was found guilty of “walking while trans,” or rather, she was profiled, harassed and assumed to be a sex worker because she is a transgender woman.

Jones was arrested for “manifesting an intent to engage in prostitution” while accepting a ride from undercover police officers to her local bar. She maintains that they approached her; ultimately, she was convicted simply for accepting the ride.

According to Phoenix law, one can be arrested under the manifestation ordinance if he or she repeatedly stops to talk to others, inquires whether or not someone is a police office or waves at cars. Naturally, all of these acts can be totally unrelated to prostitution. Evidently, these stringent laws leave much room for interpretation and resultantly, often work to harm those who are most marginalized.

Just one day earlier, Jones was protesting a program that also disproportionately harms transgender individuals and sex workers. Project Reaching Out on Sexual Exploitation – commonly referred to as Project ROSE – is a Phoenix program which purports to “help” sex workers avoid criminal charges, yet most who participate in the program are more often than not jailed when they “fail” the program.

Those charged with the manifestation ordinance are brought to a church to speak with police officers without a defense attorney and if they do not meet the attendance requirements –70 percent don’t, according to the Huffington Post – they are jailed.

Incidentally, Jones was picked up by one of the police stings involved with Project ROSE.

According to a case study on transgender police profiling by Make the Road New York, 61 percent of transgender people reported being harassed by the police. Further, the transgender community faces three times more police violence than non-transgender individuals. Most transgender individuals interviewed reported being profiled as a sex worker even when going about daily activities.

Being arrested for “walking while trans” is a bias against both transgender individuals and against sex workers. It is a bias against the former because transgender individuals – especially trans women of color – are often assumed by police officers to be sex workers.

Police profiling requires some sort of suspicion that positions transgender women of color as being inherently suspicious. This assumption rests on blatant transphobia and perpetuates the notion that transgender individuals are considered “other.”

Project ROSE is also based on the assumption that one can only help sex workers by treating them as criminals rather than victims, and furthermore, by imprisoning sex workers rather than giving them access to rehabilitation.

Whether or not someone chooses to go into sex work because of necessity or choice is irrelevant. Even when people choose to engage in survival sex work, they do not deserve to be criminalized. If it is truly out of necessity, then sex workers ought to be equipped with resources.

Police bias is one of the major problems facing the LGBTQ-plus community, and particularly the transgender community. Ultimately, ignoring the plight of violence and discrimination against transgender individuals is ultimately an impediment to bringing about equality for – and within – the LGBTQ-plus community.

Eradicating victim-blaming attitudes necessary to fight sexual assault

With Sexual Assault Awareness Week upon us, it’s important to discuss not only what we can do to raise awareness, but also what we can do to help survivors around us. Believing their stories is the most important thing we can do to help our fellow students and friends in the aftermath of sexual assault. The many misconceptions surrounding sexual assault can create a hostile environment for survivors. Most misconceptions point back to victim-blaming attitudes that position rape as avoidable if one chooses not to walk when it is too dark or avoids certain types of clothing.

Due to the high percentages of women who are raped, victim-blaming attitudes are frequently misogynistic in nature. Specifically, blaming women for dressing “provocatively” – one would never blame a murder victim for not wearing a bulletproof vest. All of these ideas implicitly remove responsibility from the rapists.

When University Police sent out a community notification about a sexual assault that occurred on campus in Geneseo last week, it noted that victims are not to be blamed for their sexual assault.

Yet, recommendations to “never walk alone, especially at night” and to “pay close attention to your surroundings at all times” are given as precautions.

Other common tips given to avoid sexual assault include ideas like anti-rape underwear and self-defense classes. While well-meaning, these tips often place the responsibility of avoiding and deterring rape upon the potential victim.

The presence of precautions implies that there is something preventable on the part of the victim, implying that sexual assault cannot be prevented on the part of the perpetrator. While these are established “tips” to avoid danger, perhaps we should be focusing prevention on the perpetrator rather than the victim.

University of Illinois-Chicago reports that 76 percent of high school boys and 56 percent of high school girls believe forced sex – rape – is acceptable in some circumstances. These include if a man spent a lot of money on a woman, if a man and woman were married and if a man and a woman were in a long-term relationship.

Additionally, 84 percent of men who committed rape did not believe it was rape. This is, in part, due to misconceptions about what rape is and who can be raped.

First, most discussions about rape are shamelessly heteronormative. The rapist is not always a man, and a woman is not always the victim. Rape can happen between people of any gender and any sexuality – the silence about rape in the LGBTQ-plus community increases the stigma of coming forward as a victim. Furthermore, this narrow idea of rape also contributes to the trivialization of other types of rape and sexual assault.

Second, rape can indeed occur between long-term partners, acquaintances, friends and even married couples. Sex is not “owed” for time, money or commitment, and the idea that it is simply perpetuates the notion that there are some instances in which it is not okay to refuse sex.

There are few other crimes where our society so quickly attempts to disprove victims when there is no good reason to feel disbelief. For this reason, I believe such pervasive disbelief of survivors comes from a place of misogyny, especially when the perpetrator is a friend or a prominent figure.

In light of Sexual Assault Awareness Week, we should recognize that blame ought to be placed upon perpetrators. I believe we should contemplate the importance of supporting survivors. Don’t sensationalize. Imagine the openness and empathy you might have in any other crisis – this is the attitude we ought to have toward all rape survivors.

Why the Mozilla CEO’s resignation was the best possible move

In 2008, technologist Brandon Eich donated $1,000 to Proposition 8, California’s failed ban on same-sex marriage. Eich, an influential member within the tech community, is the creator of JavaScript and cofounder of Mozilla Firefox. After only 11 days as CEO of Mozilla – 11 days of backlash in response to his appointment – he resigned. This controversy has prompted dialog about the relationship between politics and business. There have been cries about “free speech” from those who oppose his resignation, but Eich was right to resign even if he was under significant pressure. Given Eich’s previous donation and the lack of an apology, the pressure put on Eich was wholly justified.

When users viewed OkCupid on Firefox, the website displayed a message encouraging them to boycott Firefox.

“If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8 percent of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal,” the message said.

Additionally, several Mozilla employees spoke out and three members of the Mozilla board quit.

Eich published a blog post that preached his commitment to inclusiveness at Mozilla. He detailed his commitment to tolerance and inclusive benefits for members of the LGBTQ-plus community. The post, however, was essentially a non-apology amidst rhetoric about his “sorrow at having caused pain.”

As controversy erupted from activists as well as employees, Mozilla reinforced its “culture of openness” and acceptance of diversity in sexual orientation and beliefs. Mozilla’s head of development Geoffrey MacDougall admitted facing a conflict between free speech and equality, stating, “The right to speech is only universal if everyone is equal first.” I could not agree more with this statement.

In some states, LGBTQ-plus individuals must worry about whether or not they will lose their job or receive equal health benefits if they are in a same-sex marriage. This implicitly restricts free speech as it carries the risk of discrimination and unemployment. Political or moral opposition to an entire group of people is an implicit impediment to free speech.

Some have argued that Eich’s past political involvement sentiment should not have an impact on his career today, especially given his statement to uphold Mozilla’s commitment to diversity. Eich has never explicitly apologized for his donation to Prop 8, however, and even if he had upon his appointment, I believe it would have been disingenuous at best.

It has been six years since Eich donated to Prop 8, and it has been less than a year since the anti-marriage equality law was overturned. His commitment to Mozilla’s mission does not undermine the damage caused by Prop 8, and to claim ignorance about its effects is objectionable.

There has been significant debate about whether or not his personal views should have impacted his position. Eich has stood by his donation and he has not apologized. Roy Edroso of The Village Voice points out that many of the conservatives who believe that the left is promoting intolerance are the same conservatives who would quickly support Boy Scouts’ prohibition of gay scoutmasters. In this case, to oppose backlash against the former CEO would be hypocritical.

In Eich’s case, he was pressured to resign because of his personal views. This says nothing about freedom of speech; he is not being tried, and his resignation is not a legal matter. OkCupid’s boycott brought significant awareness to Eich’s personal views, and the public responded.

For the sake of Mozilla’s business, it was wise of Eich to resign. Business aside, this controversy has shown the public’s intolerance of bigotry and ultimately, I hope this reinforces the fact that free speech does not imply freedom of speech without consequences.

The place of trigger warnings in the classroom and beyond

There has been recent controversy over the suggestion to use trigger warnings in the classroom. Schools such as Oberlin College, Rutgers University and University of California, Santa Barbara have suggested that trigger warnings for subjects including suicide, rape and domestic abuse ought to be present on syllabi. This move has been met with ridicule and criticism. A trigger is something that sets off a memory of a traumatic event. This is most commonly associated with post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental illnesses. Triggers can be seemingly innocuous, like a name or a smell, or something more obvious like graphic descriptions of rape and violence.

A trigger warning is used to indicate that content in a blog post, book or movie could be “triggering” to an individual. For example, if someone with PTSD is exposed to a trigger, they may have flashbacks, feel as if they are reliving their trauma, have a panic attack or experience extreme discomfort.

The primary arguments against trigger warnings are that they indulge sensitivities; they are infantilizing or people simply need to learn to deal with things that upset them. People have argued that trigger warnings are a form of censorship. No one is taking away access to books or triggering material, however. PTSD is a serious mental health issue and I believe that trigger warnings are a reasonable accommodation for people who deal with it.

Critics claim triggers are a phenomenon borne from social justice communities on Tumblr. Wouldn’t psychologists, then, be “social justice warriors” when they discuss triggers with a client?

Feminists have popularized common usage of the trigger warning, but they did not invent it. Triggers are a legitimate issue for many people, some of which may be your classmates, students or friends.

As for the argument that trigger warnings coddle students, Meghan Daum from the Los Angeles Times presents a succinct rebuttal: “We may not have PTSD, but ... we customize our information delivery systems so we mostly see, hear and read what won’t upset us too much … But as we indulge in the great American pastime of accusing young people of being made of weaker stuff than their elders, we’d also do well to examine our own avoidance mechanisms.”

The concept of avoiding potentially upsetting material is neither radical nor novel; this is something we already do. Television programs warn viewers about graphic content. Movies and video games use rating systems. Science professors warn about videos or lessons containing blood or vomit. The argument that trigger warnings are infantilizing seems to be more of an issue relating to mental health issues, perhaps pointing a larger stigmatization of mental illness.

In college classrooms, finding a balance between what is reasonable and what is excessive is admittedly difficult, and I do not know if I have an answer. No one can accommodate every trigger, but perhaps professors should use their best judgment.

A brief warning either in class or on the syllabus about material containing graphic content is not unreasonable. Some have suggested that this could be abused; asking for accommodations due to PTSD can be embarrassing, and if someone is willing to feign PTSD to skip class, I hope that they would be a sad exception with poor morals.

Asking for accommodations – especially ones so personal – is not an easy thing to do, but it is something that some students do with or without trigger warnings. That being said, offering a brief trigger warning can encourage open dialogue between students and professors. A brief mention of graphic content can make giving small accommodations to a small number of students that much easier.

Reconciling science and religion: easier than it seems

With the recent debut of “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey,” intense discussion has emerged regarding science versus religion. While the show presents many compelling arguments, I find repeatedly that science and religion are presented as mutually exclusive ideologies. Much of this is based off the scientific misconstruing of religious arguments. This leads to the argument among some groups that religious people are inherently irrational science-deniers, when this is often not the case.

Being aware of rational arguments that reconcile science and religion is important when discussing either side. “Cosmos” host Neil deGrasse Tyson misconstrues several aspects of the intelligent design argument that may be far more compatible with evolution than one might have previously thought.

The design argument uses analogical reasoning to draw inferences that could support the notion that nature is produced by an intelligent being. Design proponents do not necessarily deny evolution or the Big Bang Theory, rather they argue that many parts of the universe resemble a machine, and in order to design a machine, one needs an intelligent designer.

There are many proponents of intelligent design who are also evolutionists. Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute wrote an elaborate response to Tyson condemning his exclusion of certain downfalls of evolution, along with his comparison of evolution to gravity. Tyson believes that like gravity, evolution is an unquestionable fact.

He also claims that “science reveals all life on earth is one,” using the tree of life illustration to convey all life as occurring from a common ancestor. Though genes in different organisms are similar, researcher Eric Bapteste criticizes the tree of life model in his “Networks: Expanding Evolutionary Thinking” paper published in Trends in Genetics in 2013. “The more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be,” Bapteste said. The picture of evolution painted by Tyson may not be as complete as he claims.

This is not to refute evolution so much as it is to show the absurdity of pretending to know everything about evolution. Science is not immune to being questioned.

Likewise, religion is not necessarily foolish, and furthermore, arguments for intelligent design are not necessarily theistic. Biochemist Michael Behe posits that natural selection may be inadequate to explain complex systems like the eye – which is, in a sense, like a machine – but advocates of intelligent design also acknowledge that there is no sufficient reason to think that natural selection does not exist.

Of course, the intelligent design argument has been met with criticism; just because some parts of the universe, like the eye, resemble a machine does not mean that the universe in its enormity resembles a machine. Likewise, the fact that precise circumstances were required to create our universe is also a problematic claim. If there were an intelligent designer, this universe may be far more imperfect than we realize, or contrarily, may have been the last in a series of big bangs.

Furthermore, intelligent design does not even succeed in proving a theistic god but rather provides rational grounds for the claim that some sort of supernatural being might have created some parts of our universe.

The assumption that all but hard-and-fast evolutionists are science-hating sheep is foolish, and so is the assumption that all evolutionists are god-hating heretics. Perhaps neither science nor religion can establish an irrefutable statement about the origin of existence, but ultimately, creating a false dichotomy is not going to bring the discussion any further.

The scourge of sexual assault in the U.S. military

Sexual assault is a large problem in the United States military, but only recently has its severity been brought to the public’s attention. Twenty to 48 percent of female veterans have been sexually assaulted, according to the Women’s Bureau, and the numbers are on the rise.

In 2012, soldiers were 15 times more likely to be raped by a comrade than to be killed by an enemy. According to BBC, Pentagon data reported that sexual assault rates increased to 60 percent in 2013 alone, with roughly 5,400 cases reported.

U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand attempted to pass a bill that would revoke the military’s authority to handle major military crimes, including sexual assault. Her bill received 55 votes on March 6, falling five short of the 60 needed to avoid a filibuster. Gillibrand criticized President Barack Obama for failing to issue stronger reforms to protect survivors of military sexual assault.

On the same day, Lt. Col. Joseph Morse was suspended for groping a female colleague in 2011. These allegations were brought forward in February, and only on March 6 did Morse get suspended. To make matters more disturbing, Morse is responsible for supervising other U.S. Army prosecutors who handle sexual assault cases.

Also on March 6, Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair pleaded guilty to lesser charges as part of a larger sexual assault case. According to BBC, Sinclair “pleaded guilty to improper relationships with two female Army officers, violating orders by possessing pornography in Afghanistan, and conduct unbecoming of an officer.”

BBC also reported that Sinclair is the most senior member of the U.S. Army to ever face sexual assault charges. He could potentially face life in jail if convicted for other charges including sexual assault, threats against the victim’s family and using his superior rank to continue an affair.

In light of these incidents, Gillibrand’s reforms are certainly called for – Obama promised to enact tighter reforms if conditions did not improve by the end of 2014, but how many more victims must we have before action is taken?

According to the U.S. Defense Department, out of an estimated 26,000 sexual assaults in 2012, only 3,374 were reported. The low reporting rate is unsurprising – 60 percent of victims stated that they experienced consequences for coming forward and only 302 perpetrators were actually prosecuted. These rates echo those of civilian rape; however, there is a strong argument that this is not a societal problem but a military problem.

The military rape differential reveals this: The military sexual assault rate is lower than the rate of civilian rape, yet it is higher than the same rate of any other military crime. The recruiting process serves to weed out those with criminal records, yet this does not appear to hold true for rates of sexual assault.

Gillibrand’s call to remove this power from military officials is imperative. The bias of military officials is self-evident; 60 percent of victims should not face retaliation for coming forward about sexual assault. If people like Sinclair and Morse are responsible for supervising sexual assault cases, is it fair for survivors to report their sexual assault to a system that is complicit in sexual assault? I believe not.

Beyond sexual assault within the military, we must call attention to rape as a tactic of war. The lack of statistics is in itself telling. For perspective, according to Robert J. Lilly’s Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe During World War II, American GIs raped an estimated 14,000 civilian women in Europe, France, and Germany during World War II. Civilian rape by soldiers is not something that is often discussed, and this ought to change alongside the problem of military sexual assault.