The egregious racial disparities of capital punishment in the U.S.

In the national conversation about capital punishment, wrongful convictions, financial burden on the state and morality are the central points of contention. While these factors all play a significant role in considering the death penalty’s place in modern society, they overshadow what should be the most important consideration of allowing executions to continue in the United States. Racism has been firmly entrenched in capital punishment since its inception in the American colonies. During the time of slavery, even the most minor crimes were considered capital offenses if committed by a slave. Inspiring an act of rebellion, distributing seditious literature and even the administration of medicine warranted the death penalty for slaves in certain states – not to mention more serious crimes.

These laws, which existed primarily in the South, sent the message that the right for African-Americans to live was, essentially, at the discretion of whites. Though the abolition of slavery put an end to many of these laws, the tide of lynchings that swept the American South continued the legacy of arbitrarily executing blacks accused of criminal activity – regardless of the crime’s severity or the veracity of the accusations.

Today, capital punishment is far less commonplace. It is only legal in 32 states and its application is highly restricted to certain crimes. Institutionalized racism is still very much a part of the current death penalty, however.

According to Amnesty Intentional, 77 percent of cases that resulted in an execution since 1976 involved a white victim, compared to 15 percent for African-Americans and just 6 percent for Hispanics. Furthermore, a 2007 report sponsored by the American Bar Association found that one-third of death row inmates in Philadelphia would have been given life sentences had they not been African-American.

It is jarring to think that such a blatantly racist institution could exist in this day and age, but the statistics do not lie. It is also important to emphasize the increasing prevalence of convictions that are overturned due to DNA testing in recent years. Not only are African-Americans being sentenced to death at alarming rates, a significant number of these convictions are rendered for crimes they did not commit.

Despite the overwhelming evidence suggesting the inefficiencies of capital punishment, 55 percent of Americans still support the death penalty according to the Pew Research Center. It is interesting to note that support for the death penalty among whites stands at 63 percent, while support for capital punishment in the black community sits at only 36 percent.

If all of that does not make for a convincing argument against capital punishment, consider that the cost of prosecuting cases seeking the death penalty are far more costly. With many states already in economic constraints, it is not only immoral but simply wasteful to pursue the death penalty.

The U.S. is currently the only modern industrial country that has not banned the death penalty aside from Japan. Given the dark history behind capital punishment in the U.S. and the state’s record of failure to determine guilt in cases involving the death penalty, it would behoove the United States to impose a moratorium on death sentences.

Chants in softball for cheering not jeering

If you’ve ever spent any time at all in a dugout, chances are you have heard players cheering on their teammates. Even in Little League, team cheers are a great way to keep athletes on their toes; engaged and competitive in a sport known for its occasional patches of inaction.

Geneseo’s softball team has taken organized cheering to the next level. The team has developed a bevy of chants that boost team morale and keep things light throughout the long doubleheaders.

Many of these cheers are variations on those that the athletes have grown up hearing throughout travel ball and every level of play in between. Several of the cheers have their own unique spin in order to incorporate the names of different team members. The team will even make up cheers to the tune of pop songs to motivate one another.

“It keeps us talking, it keeps us motivated and concentrated,” senior infielder Kayleigh Troia said.

Learning the cheers is something of a tradition for the athletes.

“Learning the cheers as a freshman, it’s fun watching the seniors, and as a senior it’s fun teaching [the freshmen],” Troia said.

Though many of the cheers have been around for a while, the team is always coming up with new ones. Certain players even have their own personalized cheers.

The cheers are a way to bring the team together and rally in big moments.

“There are certain cheers that are meant for big hits and RBIs that help psyche up the team and intimidate the other team,” Troia said.

Though the cheers can inspire competition between teams, they are never mean-spirited. They are always encouraging teammates, rather than attacking opponents.

While organized cheering is not unique to Geneseo softball, the team prides itself on being one of the best-sounding squads around. The team cheers loud and cheers often.

“It’s a part of practice that’s different from doing drills,” Troia said. “The cheers make the team cohesive.”

Some may perceive cheering as being best left on the Little League field, but adding some lighthearted fun into the competitive environment of collegiate athletics cannot possibly hurt.

For the fans, watching the team cheer adds a new dimension of entertainment to the games. For the athletes, it is just plain fun.

Editor’s note: 

After many delays, the Geneseo softball team is scheduled to play a doubleheader home on Thursday April 3, Friday April 4 and Saturday April 5. 

Europe’s growing tide of anti-Semitism

Across Europe, a rising tide of anti-Semitism is causing lawmakers in the European Union to strengthen existing hate speech laws. On International Holocaust Remembrance Day in January, French protestors took to the streets of Paris parading around signs, some reading “Jews get out” and others flat-out denying the Holocaust.

This is not just an isolated incident perpetrated by a fringe group of anti-Semites. A recent report by the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency found that 76 percent of the 5,000 European Jews surveyed noted an uptick of anti-Semitism in their respective countries.

Though the strengthening of hate speech laws may seem to be a reasonable, measured response to Europe’s anti-Semitism problem, it does little to get at the root of the issue. Anti-Semitism comes from centuries and centuries of repression and stereotypes that have plagued the Jewish community for time immemorial.

If anything, the presence of these restrictive laws feeds the anti-Semitic narrative that Jews exert undue control over the world’s governments. While hate speech legislation has admirable aims, its real-world implications are ineffective at best and a threat to civil liberties of all Europeans at worst.

Traditionally, intolerance toward minority groups is not extinguished by restrictions on free speech. Rather, excoriation by the media and political leaders stigmatizes such sentiments until they become unacceptable in public spheres.

The hate speech laws pushed by European leaders are a convenient way for them to condemn their constituents’ anti-Semitism without addressing its shameful persistence. France in particular has seen a surge in hyper-nationalism over the past few years. The movement emphasizes the inherent superiority of French culture.

France’s anti-Semitism is not just limited to demonstrations. In 2012, the murder of three Jewish children and their teacher in Toulouse set off a spate of anti-Semitic hate crimes, including grave vandalism and assault among dozens of others.

Clearly, hate speech legislation is doing little to curb actual hate crimes. All these laws do is criminalize nonviolent – albeit deplorable – rhetoric, while crimes that threaten the safety and livelihoods of European Jews continue unabated.

France’s renewed nationalist streak also targets the country’s Muslim population, which counts 1.5 million members. A major criticism of the hate speech laws is the French courts’ reluctance to extend protections under these laws to Muslim hate crime victims.

While it may seem hard to imagine that such open intolerance would be commonplace in a “progressive” country such as France, the truth is that anti-Semitism and Islamophobia continue to permeate through developed countries, including our own.

Ignorance of Islam dominates America’s collective perception of the religion. If France’s anti-Semitic hate crimes seemed jarring, consider that following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, hate crimes against Muslims in the United States jumped by 1,600 percent. A 2009 Gallup Poll found that roughly 40 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of Muslims.

More than prosecuting hate speech, remaining vigilant in the fight against intolerance is fundamental to preventing the escalation of discrimination. Just because the intolerance in the modern era is not always out in the open and easy to identify does not mean it is not present.

Why pot growers in California are dreading marijuana legalization

The legalization of marijuana for recreational use has gained significant traction in the United States. With Colorado and Washington already enacting laws making it legal for persons over the age of 21, many are expecting more states to follow suit, and some even feel that federal laws regarding marijuana could soon come off the books. In theory, weed legalization should be beneficial to all. States can make money by taxing recreational pot while at the same time saving money previously spent on prosecuting drug offenders. Those who simply want to enjoy marijuana without fear of arrest are free to do so.

There is one group of people, however, who have a very good reason to oppose potential legalization, and they may be the most important people involved: the farmers who make a living growing marijuana.

In Northern California, Mendocino, Humboldt and Trinity Counties comprise what is known as the “Emerald Triangle.” This rural, sparsely populated region is the largest marijuana-producing region in the U.S.

Thousands of farmers earn hearty profits plying their trade in the Emerald Triangle. Before medicinal marijuana was legalized in certain states, growers set their own prices, which allowed them to recoup the heavy expenditures required for a large-scale growing operation.

According to journalist Emily Brady, who spent a year researching the Emerald Triangle, “A friend of mine made $6,000 a pound in the early ‘90s and now earns about $1,200 a pound. If the black market that Humboldt relies upon disappears, there is speculation that pot could go as low as $500 a pound.”

Legalizing marijuana would obviously necessitate subsidies to keep farms like the ones in California operational. For many, however, the do-it-yourself aesthetic of marijuana growing was what drew them to the profession in the first place. Involving the government would fundamentally alter the lifestyle that the Emerald Triangle’s pot farmers enjoy.

Also, the full legalization of marijuana could allow industrial biotech firms with powerful Washington lobbies to reap the benefits of government subsidies, making it even more difficult for independent farmers to keep up.

Of course, legalization would benefit marijuana farmers in other ways. These grow operations are still subject to raids by the federal government, which occur with varying frequency. A single raid can seize hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of pot. Full legalization would allay this anxiety, which must loom heavily in the minds of growers.

As Brady also points out, legalization raises the opportunity for the Emerald Triangle to rebrand itself as the pot capital of the U.S. as a ploy for tourism. The influx of tourism money could help make up for lost marijuana revenue.

With increasing public support behind it, marijuana legalization will undoubtedly continue to spread throughout the rest of the nation. Before it does, though, there needs to be serious thought given to the concerns of those who grow it. A system must be put in place that fairly compensates farmers and protects them from being run out of business by larger firms they cannot possibly compete with.

If done correctly, the legalization of marijuana can be beneficial for all involved. Rushing into it is not the proper course of action. Thoughtlessly ushering in legalization could fundamentally destroy the entire multi-billion-dollar marijuana market as we know it.

The self-perpetuating success of social fraternities

In a 15,000-word essay for The Atlantic, Caitlin Flanagan extensively examined how collegiate fraternities are able to survive in the face of controversies stemming from incidents of hazing, injuries and even deaths occurring on their premises. As Flanagan correctly points out, fraternities institutionally have successfully weathered controversies that may result in the suspension of individual chapters – it is worth noting that the fraternities this editorial addresses are general and social frats, not service, ethnic or religious fraternities. A student’s death may cast a shadow over one particular chapter of a fraternity but is negligible in considering the practices of fraternities at large.

Such consideration, however, is useless. Greek culture varies widely from school to school. Geneseo’s fraternities are markedly different from those of private schools or larger state schools, especially in the South, where membership in fraternities is much larger.

As a result, a student’s experience in a fraternity will never be consistent with that of a fraternity from a different school. This is especially true depending on the age of a fraternity, its traditions and its members.

The foundation of fraternities is one thing that does remain consistent, yet it is the least analyzed aspect despite offering the most convincing explanation for fraternities’ continued success.

Fraternities are built on a system of privilege. Much is made of the professional networking opportunities afforded to members of national fraternities and the amount of Fortune 500 companies owned by fraternity members. This speaks not to the moral character of fraternity men but to the institutions in place that fill fraternity houses across the United States with a homogenous population of white, middle or upper class men.

Students seeking membership are judged based on their consistency to the ideals of the fraternities they rush. As fraternities become established on a campus, they each take on their own distinct characteristics. Think Animal House: The Omegas are old-fashioned, conservative and ostensibly wealthy, while the Deltas are crass party animals. Brothers vote to determine admission to fraternities. Though the percentage of approval one must attain to receive a bid varies, the voting process is more or less consistent among all fraternities.

Invariably, fraternities become largely homogenous organizations. With the costly dues that are required to be paid for membership, students without disposable income who might otherwise be interested in joining are kept out. The result is a system of organizations predominately made up of white males from middle or upper class backgrounds.

This should shed some light on why so many fraternity men go on to enjoy successful careers in business and politics: It was their privileged background that gave them a leg up on the competition, not their membership in a fraternity.

It is that same privilege that has allowed fraternities to thrive in the face of criticism, rather than the comprehensive risk management practices Flanagan describes. Fraternities operate outside the court of public opinion because they exist for themselves and by themselves.

This is what ultimately sustains fraternities. Their immunity to external criticism prevents them from having to change at all. In fact, it behooves them not to change. The concept of fraternity life, regardless of its accuracy, is firmly entrenched in American culture and holds a positive appeal for a large portion of the college-going population. For America’s fraternities, resistance to change is not a blemish but a point of pride.

Editor’s Note:

Kevin Frankel is a brother of Sigma Alpha Mu.

Anthropology Chair to retire

Professor Rose-Marie Chierici will step down as chair of Geneseo’s anthropology department at the end of this academic year.

Associate professor of anthropology Paul Pacheco will become department chair upon Chierici’s retirement. Pacheco comes from an archaeological background and has been a member of Geneseo’s faculty since 1999.

Chierici’s work has focused extensively on Haitian society and culture over the course of her career; she added that coming to Geneseo in 1994 gave her the opportunity to continue her work in this region.

Shortly after becoming a faculty member, Chierici organized annual student trips to rural Haiti, where students worked on various community development projects.

Chierici coordinated these trips through the nonprofit organization Haiti Outreach Pwoje Espwa, which she founded in 1998. She said that students were “instrumental” in establishing her organization that works with Haiti’s Ministry of Health to bolster the region’s health care system. Students also work with community organizers to strengthen the local economy and education systems.

“The area we were responsible for was very, very rough and remote,” Chierici said. “There was a lot of walking around since there are no roads in the area. We serve about 80,000 people.”

Chierici got her start studying zoology at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. before going on to complete her graduate work in anthropology. Chierici, who is originally from Haiti and spent time living in Italy, said she has always been fascinated by the migration patterns of people.

“Migrant labor is a very strong interest of mine,” Chierici said. “Migration in general and the plight of refugees became central to the way I view myself as an anthropologist.” She conducted her dissertation research with migrant farm laborers in western New York.

Chierici said that the highlight of her tenure at Geneseo was working closely with students and conducting extended research projects with them. Though she said she would miss mentoring students the most, Chierici will continue to instruct students, albeit in a reduced capacity.

Upon her retirement, Chierici will continue to teach one course in the fall and will work with students during summer sessions. While she will no longer be a full-time faculty member, the added free time will give Chierici a chance to pursue her other passions, such as traveling.

“I would love to go back to Australia,” she said. “My sister lives there and I would love to meet some aboriginal women that she worked with.”

Along with focusing on developing marketable skills for when they graduate, Chierici said she would love to see Geneseo’s anthropology students take advantage of service learning opportunities and internships, both on a local and international level. She also urged students and faculty to take up a collaborative spirit and explore more interdisciplinary areas of anthropology.

For Chierici, her time at Geneseo “exceeded all expectations.” She praised her students and colleagues for making her time at Geneseo “literally awesome.”

The vacuous nature of American nationalism

With the Winter Olympics in full swing, it is hard to spend 10 minutes without seeing an overt display of nationalism. Between “U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” chants or some hokey image of an American flag waving to the strains of “America the Beautiful,” American iconography is inescapable. The United States is unique in that sense; our brand of nationalism is particularly aggressive. American exceptionalism is a bipartisan issue: The U.S. is perceived to be number one and that’s how it is and always will be.

This intense patriotism appears to be little more than overcompensation for the U.S.’ dearth of national identity. As an immigrant nation, the U.S. never had a universally salient cultural background. In its absence, the self-proclaimed exceptionalism we now recognize as patriotism evolved. Like Jay Gatsby, America sprang from a Platonic conception of itself. We said we were the best, so surely we must be.

Americans love to quantify their country’s greatness by easily measureable categories: military prowess, national wealth and, yes, Olympic medals. More abstract measures like civil liberties consequently fall to the wayside and become less important to policymakers. Former President George W. Bush’s evisceration of civil liberties via the Patriot Act never hurt him as much as military victories such as the capture of Saddam Hussein helped him. As long as Americans are given a highly publicized victory to rally around, however small, we are willing to look past the decline of what once made this country exceptional.

Therein lies the danger of internalizing blind patriotism. If we allow our perceived superiority to become our defining quality, we lose the capacity for self-criticism. Being that the U.S. is lagging behind in education, economic growth, incarceration rates and more, we should absolutely be taking a critical eye to the institutions that have gotten us to where we are today.

Of course, there are greater forces at play responsible for the gradual decline of America as a world power. It is curious, though, that fervent patriotism would survive, and even thrive, amidst this rough patch in American history. Patriotism seems to be America’s comfort blanket. After 9/11, flag sales surged, as did Bush’s previously dismal approval rating.

In the U.S.’ most vulnerable moments, its citizens can still cling to the far-flung myth that theirs is the greatest country in the world, as if such a title is even possible to designate.

Even more telling of the country’s steadfast commitment to unfettered patriotism is its ubiquity across party lines. In a political climate in which even the minutest issues are politicized, both Democratic and Republican rhetoric is littered with an almost absurd level of patriotic sentiment.

In a speech given when he was running for president in 2008, President Barack Obama said, “For me, as for most Americans, patriotism starts as a gut instinct, a loyalty and love for country rooted in my earliest memories.”

Obama’s statements are key to understanding how patriotism manifests in American culture. His words reinforce the ludicrous myth that America’s superiority is so predestined that a young child could infer it.

The core problem with patriotism is that it glorifies an abstraction. When someone chants, “U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!,” what exactly are they cheering for? If they were to be cheering for the sum of American history, they would endorse some truly wretched institutions. Instead, patriotic gestures are merely a celebration of the qualities one ascribes to the United States, correctly or incorrectly, and nothing more.

Schumer’s proposal offers best hope at passing immigration bill

U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York has a rather unorthodox suggestion for passing immigration reform in 2014: pass the law, but do not let it take effect until 2017, after President Barack Obama has left office. The senator’s suggestion is a response to the Republican Party’s skepticism of Obama’s willingness to enforce new immigration legislation. The plan was immediately rebuffed by high-ranking Republicans but could actually be the key to passing meaningful and effective immigration legislation – a mere pipe dream to Democrats up until now.

House Republicans have been eyeing new immigration legislation for months, but Speaker of the House John Boehner casted doubt on those plans Thursday, saying, “There’s widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce our laws, and it’s going to be difficult to move any immigration legislation until that changes.”

Schumer’s proposal would not just ease the GOP’s tensions over the legislation’s enforcement, it would also make for a more effective bill altogether. With the law not taking effect until 2017, the Obama administration could focus its resources on deporting undocumented immigrants – which Obama has being doing – who would be ineligible for the path to citizenship laid out by the new legislation.

Schumer added that hammering out legislation in 2015 or 2016 – in the midst of presidential primaries – would make compromise even more difficult than it already is, leading to an ideologically polarized bill.

What Schumer’s plan lacks in flashiness and fanfare it makes up for substance and practicality. It is a common-sense approach to a problem that has beguiled both Republicans and Democrats for years. The passage of comprehensive immigration legislation has proven to be an unusually daunting task over the past few years.

Of course, Republicans have reacted unfavorably to Schumer’s plan, insisting that it would be unfeasible. Given that the proposal utilizes the type of simplified logic so frequently espoused by GOP leadership, one would think that congressional Republicans would be more willing to reach across the aisle. Alas, this is Congress, and bipartisanship seems to be going the way of the dodo bird.

The GOP is likely just biding its time until after the midterm elections later this year to draft an ultra-conservative bill. With the Democrats in a perilous situation leading up to the midterms, Republicans may have an easier time passing their legislation after November.

While Obama could simply veto any legislation the Democrats oppose, this would provide the GOP with plenty of ammunition in the 2016 elections. Blocking the first piece of comprehensive immigration reform in years, regardless of its merits, would stand to make the Democrats look pretty bad.

It is clear that the immigration debate is not about immigration at all. Rather, it is merely another opportunity for Republicans to try and squeeze some small victory out of a situation wherein there is a real possibility of helping people. It is telling of the GOP’s priorities that rather than actually try and help Americans – which I read somewhere is what politicians are supposed to do – Republicans would rather denigrate Democrats.

On the reluctance to shun Woody Allen

In the 20 years since Woody Allen was first accused of sexually abusing 7-year-old Dylan Farrow, he has largely escaped public rebuke. In fact, he has continued his reign as one of America’s most celebrated filmmakers, thanks in part to the countless actors who continue to work with him and an adoring public that discounts his alleged crimes as being mere hearsay.

And is it really so wrong to refrain from turning your back on someone for a crime that he was never even charged with? The very foundation of our judicial system is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Allen has never been charged with any crime and has consistently denied any wrongdoing. We do, however, have testimony in the form of an open letter published on The New York Times website written by his alleged victim detailing Allen’s transgressions. Between Allen and Farrow, someone is telling the truth and someone is not. Who you choose to believe speaks volumes about the way you view sexual assault and your willingness – or lack thereof – to abandon your heroes.

Aaron Bady of The New Inquiry put it best: “If you are saying things like, ‘We can’t really know what happened’ and extra-specially pleading on behalf of the extra-special Woody Allen, then you are saying that his innocence is more presumptive than hers.”

Why would it be more presumptive – because he has made some movies we all really like, while the name Dylan Farrow means next to nothing to us? I’m comfortable saying that Allen’s films, short stories, plays and stand-up comedy have meant more to me than any other artist’s throughout my life up to this point. I would have to be a sociopath, however, to let that cloud my objectivity in assessing that he is a pedophile responsible for heinous crimes.

That is what has kept so many others from turning their backs on him. When someone has given as much to the world as Allen has, it is painful to come to grips with the fact that he has also committed a crime of the most deplorable sort. People will do whatever it takes to deflate the opposing side’s argument so that they can continue to see him not as a dangerous pedophile but as the man who gave us Annie Hall.

Allen is not the only great artist to have committed unconscionable crimes – Roman Polanski and R. Kelly come to mind. Each of these men has made valuable contributions to his respective medium, but that value does not outweigh the severity of the crimes they committed. Put yourself in the place of the victim: living in a world where the man who permanently scarred you has his movies on television every day or his song on the radio every 30 minutes.

To cast doubt on Farrow’s testimony is a singular act of selfishness. It protects one’s own relationship to Allen at the expense of his sole known victim. The important thing to remember is that your relationship to his movies is not what truly matters. What does matter is that a woman has publicly confirmed that Allen molested her when she was a child, yet he is still walking free today.

Lessons learned from the Grantland “Dr. V” debacle

A journalist’s job is, essentially, to collect and report information. Where there are inconsistencies, the onus to illuminate and explain them falls on the journalist. As Caleb Hannan learned, however, there is a distance that must be kept between reporting and involvement in a story.

While reporting for Grantland on Essay Anne Vanderbilt, the enigmatic creator of a revolutionary golf club, Hannan uncovered a number of discrepancies in Vanderbilt’s supposed education and professional background. After digging a little deeper, Hannan also found that Vanderbilt was a transgender woman.

After Vanderbilt learned that Hannan divulged this information to one of her investors, she strongly urged Hannan to back off with his reporting. Shortly after her final interaction with Hannan, Vanderbilt committed suicide.

Vanderbilt’s status as a transgender woman was not Hannan’s information to share. That was his first and most destructive mistake. Further, the tone of Hannan’s article and its subsequent focus on Vanderbilt’s status as a trans woman violated Hannan’s agreement with Vanderbilt to “focus on the science and not the scientist.”

The argument that Hannan had no business outing Vanderbilt and should have edited his work more thoroughly – the final draft was littered with misused pronouns – is undoubtedly true. Given these horrendous errors, many have suggested that the article should have never been published. I do not see it that way.

The article was published months after Vanderbilt took her own life. I am not normally fond of justifying something by saying it “started a conversation,” but I see a very teachable moment in this whole debacle.

Christina Kahrl, a reporter for ESPN who also serves on GLAAD’s board of directors, discussed the myriad issues with the article in a piece published by Grantland. She points out that Hannan’s story would reinforce the wrong messages about the trans community to Grantland’s readership, comprised largely of older white males.

I see it slightly differently, though. Hannan’s piece, published quietly with little fanfare or promotion, has become notable chiefly because of its flaws. The original reporting is inseparable from the ensuing controversy. In fact, the story runs with both Kahrl’s piece detailing its flaws and an apology from Grantland Editor-in-Chief Bill Simmons at the top of its page. Hannan’s story reads as much as the story of a new golf club and its creator as it does a tutorial of how not to talk about trans people.

Maybe I am being overly optimistic in thinking that Grantland’s readers will be cognizant of the article’s flaws. I cannot help but feel, however, that this piece has brought issues surrounding the trans community to the fore that would otherwise continue to be overlooked.

The story may have significantly damaged Grantland’s credibility as a publication. Granted, its handling of the fallout has been admirable, but as Simmons acknowledged in his apology, the fact that this piece made it through so many levels of editing without adequate attention being paid to its inherent issues is unacceptable. As long as Hannan’s piece spreads awareness about how to talk correctly about the trans community, however, I will continue to see some positive in this situation.

Rochester's continued struggle with segregation

Three Rochester teens were arrested on Nov. 27 while waiting for a school bus to bring them to a basketball game at a nearby school. Rochester Police charged the students, all of whom are black, with disorderly conduct on the grounds that they were obstructing the sidewalk.

Though it seems fairly obvious that this is another instance of racial profiling, it becomes even more apparent when one considers the city of Rochester’s deep-seated racial issues.

In 2011, city councilman Adam McFadden was part of a 15-person commission to address racial profiling by the Rochester Police Department. Rochester, which is 41.7 percent black according to the 2010 United States Census, maintains huge disparities in arrests for petty crimes between black and white males.

According to CNN, 104 black males between the ages of 16 and 30 were arrested for petty crimes in 2000, as opposed to 26 white males in the same age range. In 2010, the disparity widened, with 171 blacks and 20 whites.

When Emily Good tried to film three white officers abrasively interrogating a black man in front of her house in May 2011, she was arrested herself. Her charges were later dropped.

This recent incident is a reminder that Rochester is still struggling to redress its many racial issues, which extend far beyond racial profiling.

According to the Democrat and Chronicle, an as-of-yet unreleased report by the Civil Rights Project at the University of California, Los Angeles found that Rochester’s public schools are among the most segregated in the nation. In order for Rochester schools to reach ideal integration, 70 percent of the area’s black or white students would have to move schools.

These divisions between Rochester’s black and white populations are dangerous. Beyond promoting the type of economic isolation that can precipitate crime, the city’s racial segregation must be taken into account when considering the rash of racially motivated crimes that have occurred throughout the city.

In 2012, vandals spray-painted swastikas and “KKK” onto the house of a Somali family in Rochester. It was the second such occurrence to have occurred in one year.

Racial segregation drives a wedge between the groups it affects. Familiarity breeds understanding and compassion. It is imperative that the city of Rochester takes steps to correct the fundamental inequalities that exist at present within its schools and beyond.

Unfortunately, as of right now, Rochester seems headed in the opposite direction. Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks’ proposed county budget for 2014 contains cuts to vital social services, such as childcare, that would help Rochester’s black and Latino population, 32 percent of which lives below the poverty line.

Segregation persists largely due to the economic inequality that pervades Rochester. With segregation comes a host of other problems. The incident involving the teens waiting for the bus is just a glimpse into the city of Rochester’s extreme race problem.

Fixing that problem involves reform at virtually all levels. The city’s police department must thoroughly reexamine its rampant profiling, while local and state governments must support initiatives to sustain Rochester’s most vulnerable populations.

Development plans threaten New York City as we know it

By now you may have seen The Huffington Post’s projections for what New York City will look like in 2033. A host of renovations for the city’s most unattractive areas are slated, such as a $15 billion plan to replace Manhattan’s West Side rail facilities with 26 acres of private real estate. On the surface, these renovations seem like a positive step to beautify the city. If ever completed, however, these plans will succeed in turning the city into a playground only accessible to the ultra-wealthy.

The cost of living for New York City is already the highest of cities in the United States. The high cost of real estate is in part due to zoning laws and landlords squeezing money out of their tenants.

The limited space coupled with the number of people competing to live in the city, however, is what ultimately continues to drive the cost of real estate upward.

The few areas of the city that have not been sanitized over the past 20 years are the subjects for most of the proposed developments. Even outer-borough hotspots such as Brooklyn’s Williamsburg, where rent prices rival those of the Upper West Side, will undergo facelifts. Whole Foods, J. Crew and Urban Outfitters have all announced plans to open up shops in Williamsburg in 2014.

Meanwhile, a $1.1 billion development deal is set to bring 1,000 new housing units to the Lower East Side. Half of those would likely be available at below-market prices. While those 500 housing units may be a godsend for whichever lucky souls win the lotteries for them, the other units will undoubtedly skyrocket in price as the Lower East Side completes its march to full-on gentrification.

These development deals will succeed only in pushing out the last few middle and lower-class residents. It’s not like it hasn’t happened once before.

Those seeking to carve out an affordable life in the city once flocked to downtown neighborhoods like the East Village and SoHo. Of course, those neighborhoods are no longer accessible to the average person earning modest wages.

These development plans get people excited with shiny artists’ renderings of what New York City will look like. Those plans, however, will prevent anyone who isn’t a multi-millionaire or billionaire from living in the city.

There is little new housing built in the metropolitan area. The planned housing largely consists of “luxury condos” in the outer boroughs. As the city becomes an even more desirable place to live and competition to live there increases, the amount of available housing for the middle and lower classes remains stagnant.

That presents a major problem: The economic health of any town, city, state or country is dependent upon a thriving middle class. Without a middle class anywhere near New York City, who is going to construct these lofty plans? Who is going to work at the Williamsburg Whole Foods when living in Brooklyn on minimum wage is impossible?

New York City has long been a cross-section of our society, bringing together people of all walks of life. If the current trend of overzealous development continues unabated, soon the city will lose all that once defined it.

What does the Rob Ford scandal say about our celeb-obsessed culture?

Given the royal treatment they receive from the media and the adoring public, it can become easy to forget that celebrities are real people. That may sound cliche, but actually take a moment to consider what that entails. Celebrities are subject to the same highs and lows as us. You know, the things that make all of us human.

Among those lows is the capacity to screw up massively. I don’t know anyone, myself included, who has never done something they have instantly regretted. Normally, we meet these mistakes with understanding because compassion and empathy are also innate human characteristics.

But when our beloved public figures do something embarrassing, we are unable to do anything but turn their names into punch lines. When Mayor of Toronto Rob Ford recently admitted to smoking crack cocaine after months of denial, it only unleashed a torrent of new jokes at his expense.

Never mind that Ford, who comes from a family with a history of addiction and shows signs of alcoholism himself, is clearly in need of help. Instead, because he is constantly in the public eye, we need him to be a beacon of unimpeachable character. Any other person in his shoes would have people rushing to help him. Instead, Ford gets to turn on the news and watch people make fun of him.

In the case of former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, he could have handled himself with more grace in his reaction to his sexting scandal. Furthermore, he should not have been sending those messages given the fact that he’s married and has a child. Criticizing him for either of those things would be valid. Instead, what we got were people making fun of the actual messages.

I’m not going to defend Weiner, but the fact that the public gets off on making fun of someone’s private messages is pathetic, not to mention lazy. Chances are you or someone you know has sexted before, whether it was with a significant other or a casual acquaintance.

If you were to read those conversations back, it would sound ridiculous. That is why those conversations are typically kept private. You wouldn’t ask your friends to share their sexts with you because that is a breach of privacy.

In our celebrity-obsessed culture, however, the public feels entitled to access every facet of celebrities’ private lives. When we find something that is the least bit vulnerable or potentially compromising, we latch on to it like vultures that feed off of the embarrassment of others.

The humor of these circumstances lies in the disparity between one’s public and private persona. But again, what makes that different from any one of us? Celebrities serve the public, just as you might serve your boss. You wouldn’t act the same way in front of your boss and your close friends.

These different personas are what make people functional members of society. The ability to assess a situation and act accordingly is a pretty fundamental human trait.

This brings me back to my original point. Celebrities are just people. Imagine how jarring it would be to live under the assumption that your every move is watched by millions of people. It is so incredibly dehumanizing. So the next time a politician or a singer has some sort of “scandal,” ask yourself how egregious it really is.

How the war on drugs is precipitating the decline of American cities

The war on drugs has been a costly, bloated failure. Its ramifications are felt nationwide in the United States’ absurdly large prison population and punitive sentencing laws. While the drug war is an issue that affects Americans from all walks of life, America’s cities, in particular, have borne the brunt of its consequences. Across the U.S., the war on drugs has precipitated the decline of once great American cities.

It is important to understand the conditions that allow drugs to seep into America’s inner cities. Education and employment conditions in these areas essentially create a vacuum of legitimate economic opportunity for their residents.

If we look at cities with notoriously bad drug problems, there is a pattern of rampant unemployment and low-performing public school districts. Washington, D.C., where crack and cocaine continue to plague poor communities, has one of the lowest graduation rates in the country at just 73 percent.

The city also has a huge disparity between upper and lower class employment rates. In the district’s wealthier hubs, unemployment sits at just 4 percent, while that rate reaches 22 percent in lower-income neighborhoods.

Where dire economic conditions persist, people will turn to drugs to make ends meet. Cities such as Detroit, Baltimore and Gary, Ind. once had thriving manufacturing industries. As those blue-collar jobs disappeared, a new economy of drug dealing appeared in its place.

An appropriate response to the drug epidemic would be investment in low-skilled labor in these cities that would remove the need for alternative economies. Rather, the government has pursued policies that exacerbate the problem.

Drug crimes are sentenced extremely punitively. Mandatory minimum sentences give judges very little leeway to offer reduced jail time to those who are charged with drug crimes. Furthermore, once in jail, there is almost no focus on rehabilitating and readjusting inmates to common society. According to the Bureau of Justice, 66.7 percent of drug offenders released in 1994 were arrested again within three years.

Not to mention residents of inner cities, especially minorities, essentially have a target on their backs. In Washington, African Americans comprise an astonishing 90 percent of drug arrests, according to the Washington Lawyers’ Committee.

Efforts to punish drug offenses, many of which are victimless possession charges, perpetuate an underclass of American citizens. The war on drugs has undermined the economy of American cities by rendering urban residents unfit to be a part of any legitimate workforce.

America’s cities have issues that extend far beyond the enforcement of drug laws, to be sure. But understanding the consequences of the drug war is integral to understanding the decay of American cities.

People talk about cities like Detroit as if they went from booming metropolises to ghost towns overnight. In actuality, the decline was a long one that occurred as generation after generation was marginalized by an economy that had no place for it. Drugs would not be the problem they are today if not for the absence of urban economies that contain insurmountable barriers to entry.

Similarly, fixing America’s cities will not occur overnight. A good start, however, would be a comprehensive redress of sentences for simple possession charges. Eliminating mandatory minimums, too, would reduce time spent in jail for hundreds of thousands of people nationwide.

Finally, increased investment in the types of jobs that can sustain a middle class will prevent people from resorting to the drug trade to make ends meet. Those types of jobs made America’s cities great once, and they can certainly do so again.

Why Jewish Americans are starting to lose faith in Israel

A recent Pew Research study revealed some enlightening trends regarding the perception of Israel by American Jews. According to the study, support for Israel is highest among Orthodox Jews, while secular and reform Jews are not as unified in their support for the state. Only 43 percent of Jewish respondents identified “caring about Israel” as essential to Jewish identity.

What, then, could be responsible for this shift in attitude? Israel’s drastic and at times inhumane treatment of its non-Jewish residents could finally be alienating a largely liberal population of American Jews.

My Jewish identity has always informed my liberal beliefs. It is because of those beliefs that I cannot fully support a state that institutionalizes segregation and targets civilians in military conflicts.

While these were not the values on which the state of Israel was founded, they have become inseparable from the current culture. For example, Israel has long segregated its buses between Palestinians and Israelis. These segregated buses service the contentious regions of the West Bank and Jerusalem, which have admittedly far more conflict than other regions of Israel.

In 2012, Israel carried out Operation Pillar of Defense in response to the fire of Palestinian rockets into Israel. The weeklong conflict ended in a ceasefire when both sides claimed victory.

While the Israeli Defense Force claims to not target civilians, the United Nations Human Rights Council eventually determined that 107 Palestinian civilians were killed in the conflict.

It should be wholly understandable, if not intuitive, that all of this would cause Israel to fall out of favor with American Jews. In the same survey on Jewish identity, over 50 percent of respondents identified “working for justice/equality” as essential to Jewish identity.

Jewish history is essentially a primer on the dangers of persecution of a specific group. To give a brief synopsis of the formation of Israel, persecution of European Jews in the 19th century lead to a renewal of the Zionist movement. Jews immigrated to the region en masse and, shortly after World War II, the state of Israel was officially founded.

It is ironic, then, that a state founded in direct response to a group of people’s persecution would codify some of the same policies formerly used to marginalize Jews.

Rather, Israel should use Jewish history as a means to guide its relations with the Arab world. While it is true that neither side is blameless in the deterioration of diplomacy, Israel should know quite well the dangers of resorting to violence and segregation.

This puts me and, I suspect, many other Jewish people in a peculiar situation. For 5,000 years, Jews have been persecuted without a safe haven. Israel was created to offer just that.

Over the course of its history, Israel has benefitted from the broad support of the international community, particularly from the United States. The recent study on Jewish support, however, indicates that such support may be starting to waver. If Israel wishes to remain in favor of the international community, it must change course.

You would be hard pressed to find a Jewish person who does not agree with the concept of a Jewish state. But when that state is founded on principles directly contrary to the foundation of the Jewish faith, then clearly there is a problem.

A shift to the middle could be in store for the GOP

Though you might hear pundits and politicians claim there are no winners and losers in the shutdown debacle, it is pretty hard to look at the Republican Party and say that it has not suffered a tremendous defeat. The shutdown exposed a growing rift inside the GOP between the so-called tea party and less extreme conservatives. If the shutdown proved one thing, it is that the tea party’s only agenda is to see President Barack Obama’s health care plan crash and burn. Ultimately, this agenda is unsustainable, and the GOP will pay dearly for it.

When Speaker of the House John Boehner introduced a bill to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling, he could not muster up enough GOP support for it. The bill eventually died, after the Heritage Foundation urged House Republicans to vote against it for not doing enough to damage the Affordable Care Act, according to PoliticusUSA.

If there were ever any question over the GOP’s priorities, let it be put to rest. The Republican Party has unequivocally spoken: They would rather see the Affordable Care Act, a bill that passed years ago, be killed than have a functioning government.

If the GOP thinks it can just walk away from this mess, it is in for a rude awakening. With the 2014 elections just over a year away, Democratic candidates will have plenty to run on. Not to mention, with the debt ceiling issue merely pushed back until February, it is very likely that we will run into this mess all over again in a few months.

Whether the GOP learns from its mistakes or pushes for yet another shutdown, it will not reflect well on the Republican Party. If congressional Republicans push for another shutdown, Democrats will naturally attack them for shutting down the government twice in less than one year.

On the other hand, if they are more willing to negotiate this time around, then it will be all but an official concession of defeat to the Democrats. Come to think of it, watching congressional Republicans come to the negotiating table sullen and humbled would feel really satisfying, but I digress.

Much like Republicans pushed to the far right during the 2010 midterm elections, it may be that their best bet looking ahead is a move toward the center. While doing so would amount to an admission of failure, it would at least signify a degree of maturity among congressional Republicans, who have largely acted like disagreeable toddlers since Obama took office.

I would go after Democrats for their role in causing the shutdown if they really had one. Their only agenda was to implement a law that had passed cleanly through Congress.

To be perfectly honest, I could not care less which direction the GOP takes. If Republicans want to continue to shoot themselves in the foot, that just bodes well for Democrats in 2014 and beyond. But it is absolutely unacceptable for budget negotiations rife with ludicrous demands to become commonplace. That is no way to devise policy – plain and simple.

If the GOP has any shot at restoring its credibility, a move to the center might be it. It is not a sure thing, but at this point, what does the Republican Party have to lose?

The Confederate flag in the 21st century: What does it really stand for?

On Saturday Sept. 28, a group called Virginia Flaggers hoisted up the Confederate flag along a stretch of Interstate 95 near Richmond, Va., the former capital of the Confederacy. The event reignited a contentious debate over the legacy of the Confederate flag and its symbolism. Those who believe in displaying the rebel flag simply do not understand the depth of history imbued in the image.

Virginia Flaggers founder Susan Hathaway said, “The sole intention of this is to honor our ancestors.”

It seems like an innocuous motive until you fully realize what that entails.

Writing in The Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates said, “It is not simply that the flag is offensive. It is that it is the chosen symbol of slaveholders and those who wanted to live in a republic rooted in slaveholding.”

This is what so many fail to grasp about the Confederate flag. For all the talk of the heritage and sacrifice it represents, there is no talk about what that heritage and sacrifice is rooted in.

Coates also said that when the Civil War started, the total value of enslaved black people in the country was $3 billion, a sum larger than the values of every factory and railroad in America combined. According to Coates, cotton from the South accounted for 59 percent of the country’s exports in 1836.

Some historians will claim that the Civil War was fought over states’ rights; they are completely wrong. The Civil War was fought by the Confederacy to protect the institution of slavery in the South and ensure its expansion to newly forming states in the West.

Therein lies the problem of Confederate regalia. There exists a tremendous dissonance in displaying the flags of slavery apologists while insisting it stands for something other than slavery. At the very least, it represents a yearning for a bygone era in which blacks were considered subhuman.

Groups like Virginia Flaggers, as well as individuals, who display the Confederate flag, must realize that the flag is not simply a symbol of their Southern forefathers. It, like all flags, carries with it the guiding ideologies of those who flew it. In the case of the Confederacy, the guiding ideology is that slavery is an institution worth dying to defend.

As a Northerner who feels no kinship with the South or its heritage, I recognize that I cannot just tell those who feel a connection to the flag to no longer feel that way. Rather, I would encourage an objective examination of exactly what place the flag has in 2013. I do not believe that everyone who advocates for the display of the flag is racist, but I do think that they are sorely lacking the perspective that would make them rethink their devotion to this horrific symbol.

The institution of slavery severed families, killed millions and laid the foundation for the systematic inequality faced by African-Americans today. That is what the Confederacy sought to preserve. That is what those who first waved the rebel flag gave their lives. Every time a Confederate flag goes up, whether it is the intent of the owner or not, that is what is being celebrated.

Reflecting on Occupy Wall Street

Sept. 17 marked the 2-year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Inspired by the protests occurring in the Middle East at the time, demonstrators took to Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan to protest – something.Occupy Wall Street was a flawed movement from the very beginning; it was disorganized and lacked the clear focus needed to affect serious change. Just a few aims of the movement were to decrease income inequality, forgive student-loan debt, fight corruption on Wall Street, reform the banking industry and lower unemployment. Undoubtedly, all of those are important issues that need to be addressed. But it is a pipe dream to think that all of these goals could be accomplished in one, singular movement. Two years after the movement, none of its goals have come to fruition. Had the movement maintained a clearer focus and a more efficient approach, this might not be the case. The problems with the movement began with the very concept of it. Rather than target the source of the problem, the movement aimed at Wall Street. Wall Street may be a convenient symbol of what the movement fought against, but it was just that: a symbol. Hanging out in a park while holding up signs with your friends is fun, but it does not actually do anything to advance your cause. The movement’s target should have been Congress, which has been responsible for nearly every problem that Occupy Wall Street protesters sought to ameliorate. Congress gutted the Dodd-Frank Bill, which, in its original form, would have imposed more effective regulations on the banking sector. Congress authorized the taxpayer-funded bailouts for the banks after they went belly-up. Congress repealed the Glass-Steagall Act way back in 1999. Basically, Congress sucks. People know that Congress sucks, too. Its approval rating is at historic lows. So, we have a situation in which there is a branch of government acting against the interests of its constituents. Things come to a head and the people decide they do not want to put up with it anymore. One would think that there is a clear course of action: Citizens lobby their elected representatives to change their tune. If they do not, vote them out of office. That is how democracy works. Instead, what we got was something that felt important, but two years later accomplished nothing. Let me be clear: I support demonstration and civil disobedience for the right causes. In fact, I think many of the causes of the Occupy Wall Street were worthy and deserving of attention. But when you call it a day after holding up some signs and doing some chanting, you are not doing enough. Take the recent movement for a raise in the minimum wage. In addition to public protests, demonstrators have endlessly lobbied politicians. As a result, California Governor Jerry Brown has already signed legislation to raise the state’s minimum wage to $10 an hour. Similar bills are being debated nationwide. In an age when showing support for a cause is as easy as changing your Facebook profile picture, complacency runs rampant through social movements. Occupy Wall Street brought much-needed visibility to a number of important causes, a noble undertaking to be sure. Yet here we are, two years later, and little has changed. Unemployment remains high, and income inequality is even worse. Of course, blame is to be shared all around. But let’s be real: Occupy Wall Street really did not help.

The Lamron Staff Picks: It's autumn, welcome the season of death with song

While there’s nothing quite like precious fall in Geneseo, the neatest thing about the season is that we are literally surrounded by death. Those beautiful leaves of auburn, gold and chestnut - they are all dead. Despite that, death does not have to be entirely sad. In fact, death has inspired some truly beautiful pieces of art, as can be heard in this playlist. Some are painful and some are upbeat, but they all make me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

1. “Someone Great” by LCD Soundsystem

James Murphy’s greatest gift as a songwriter is his ability to deliver complex messages using the simplest of language. Murphy laments the death of a loved one, singing, “The worst is all the lovely weather/I’m sad it’s not raining.” The world continues to go on unaffected despite the absence of someone great. Set against a hypnotic electronic arrangement, this song is at once heartbreaking and mesmerizing.

2. “Memphis Skyline” by Rufus Wainwright

Two of the best songwriters of their generation, Rufus Wainwright and Jeff Buckley, rivaled one another for a short period in the ‘90s. Wainwright resented Buckley for his prowess until Buckley’s untimely death in 1997. In this stunning ballad, Wainwright retells the story of Orpheus trying to rescue his wife Eurydice from the Underworld by playing a song for Hades. It hits me right in the feelings, every time.

3. “Road to Nowhere” by Talking Heads

This song is not as explicitly about death as the others. The opening lyrics do, however, offer a beautifully concise summation of life itself: “Well we know where we’re going/But we don’t know where we’ve been.” None of us can definitively know from whence we came, but we know exactly where we will end up - spoiler alert: We all die.

4. “Somebody Got Murdered” by The Clash

One nice thing about The Clash is you can meet someone and ask, “Do you like The Clash?” If that person does, you can bet he or she is going to be cool and interesting. This song, reportedly written after Joe Strummer saw a dead man lying in the street, is a sobering exploration of the senselessness of violence set to a deceptively upbeat rhythm.

5. “On and On and On” by Wilco

I love Wilco so much it hurts. Jeff Tweedy presents as compelling a case as any for the acceptance of one’s mortality. What’s more, he infuses it with a twinge of optimism. Bless your soul, Tweedy.

6. “Until I Am Whole” by The Mountain Goats

For a playlist comprised of songs about death, the previous selections have not been too bleak. Well, I cannot say the same for this dark track about the pitfalls of depression. Let’s just move on, shall we?

7. “Elegie” by Patti Smith

Patti Smith only needs two minutes and 44 seconds to capture the loneliness of losing a loved one. One of the most underrated songwriters of her era, Smith has influenced dozens of musicians, from Madonna to Michael Stipe of R.E.M. She is a revelation and is still putting out brilliant music today.