Political correctness hinders learning in college courses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Super Bowl ads replace creativity with lazy humor

What might be even more famous than the Super Bowl are its highly anticipated—and usually over-the-top—commercials. While people who are uninterested in sports often say, “I’m only watching the Super Bowl for the commercials,” we think—after seeing the commercials this year—that that notion might be more of a spectacle that the football game itself.

Super Bowl commercials increase in ridiculousness and desperation every year. Instead of trying to sell a product in a clever and attractive way, many commercials rely on absurdity and base humor in the hopes that the consequent attention on social media will be the better advertisement. Capitalizing on young consumers’ “addiction” to smartphones and viral Internet videos may sound like a smart tactic, but in practice, it leaves us feeling patronized, confused and uncomfortable while we watch ads such as Mountain Dew’s “Puppy Monkey Baby.”

Mountain Dew’s commercial is the epitome of the “viral video” tactic advertisers are increasingly starting to adopt. For this ad, a weird, unsettling hybrid creature of a puppy, monkey and a baby does not make sense for selling a soda drink. A strange commercial that garners media attention may not necessarily lead to an increase in product sales—if it’s weird enough it could even lead to a decrease—but at least people are talking about Mountain Dew.

Reebok produced a Super Bowl commercial in 2003 called “Terry Tate: Office Linebacker” based on an existing marketing campaign. The commercial followed Tate around an unassuming office where he tackled his coworkers for taking long breaks and playing solitaire. The ad was hilarious and smart, completely different from this year’s ads. Now, companies like Mountain Dew are appealing to our lowest senses and expecting similar results.

If companies spend millions of dollars a year on commercials that last only a minute on our television screens, we expect them to be good. Maybe it is time the weird ones will inspire us to care less about the capitalization of the Super Bowl and just enjoy the game instead.

Pregnancy ban impractical solution to Zika virus in El Salvador

The outbreak of the Zika virus across Latin American countries has become a fear-inducing aspect of life for many—specifically pregnant women. Due to the linkage between mothers with the Zika virus and incomplete brain development in their babies, officials from El Salvador are promoting a ban on pregnancy until 2018. When considering El Salvador’s stringent laws regarding abortion and their inaccessibility to preventive measures, however, the suggested ban places women in a very risky situation.

Although discovered in the Zika Forest in Uganda in the late 1940s, the Zika virus outbreak in Brazil and nearby nations—such as El Salvador—has caused the Zika virus to come into focus in the global eye. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the mosquito-transmitted virus causes fevers, rashes, headaches and—in some cases—pink eye. The more damaging impact of the Zika virus, however, has been said to be its connection with microcephaly, a neurological disorder resulting in abnormally small heads in newborns and an impairment to cognitive development. Hence, why women are being urged to not get pregnant.

To prevent pregnancy in the first place, the simplest measures are the use of contraceptives. Women in El Salvador, however, lack access to both birth control pills and condoms. Although legal in El Salvador, birth control can only be given to women with a prescription and the pills themselves are only sold in limited areas. There is also a limited availability of condoms, making them very expensive.

Additionally, if a woman does become pregnant, they lack the option to abort their fetus due to El Salvador’s strict abortion laws—laws that are considered to be some of the strictest in the world. El Salvador outlawed abortion in all circumstances in 1998—including when a woman is raped, has fatal abnormalities or the pregnancy has life-threatening effects for the mother. The 1998 law seems to have gone a step back in time for women and their rights, especially considering the flexibility of the 1973 Penal Code in El Salvador.

The 1973 Penal Code permitted women to lawfully get an abortion under three circumstances: when abortion was the only option in saving the life of the mother, in cases of rape or statutory rape and when the baby had risk of deformity. The 1998 law reverses this and places El Salvador as one of six nations in the world denying women abortion under all circumstances.

In El Salvador, women have spent years in jail after being accused of abortion when they actually had a miscarriage. With the fear of jail time, women in El Salvador keep home abortions under wraps. As a country with one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in Latin America, El Salvador sees women resorting to dangerous methods of aborting their own babies such as ingesting pesticides or rat poison. By outlawing pregnancy, El Salvador only increases the risk for this dangerous behavior.

Rather than restricting abortion rights, the Salvadoran government should provide women with pregnancy preventative tools. By lowering the price of birth control pills and condoms, more women can use these contraceptives and actually abide by the law.

While the Salvadoran Demographic Association provides family planning services to people across the country, the government’s involvement toward preventing pregnancy is crucial in preventing women from feeling helpless with their bodies and the law.

Islamic State thrives on terror, hopes for legitimacy

The Islamic State continues to cause chaos across the world, using severe measures in an attempt to demonstrate its legitimacy to govern in the Middle East. Their current tactics involve centralized attacks, such as the recent bombing of a Damascus suburb in Syria on Sunday Jan. 31.

Legitimacy in a government can be obtained through numerous mediums, but they all seek the recognition of power by other nations. IS’s actions demonstrate that tyranny is its chosen avenue to gain the power to rule. This can be seen in the aforementioned Damascus attack where according to the Syrian Foreign Ministry, an estimated 50 individuals were killed and more than 100 were injured. This approach can seem to be illogical, since IS attacks the people that they claim to represent.

According to CNN, IS has executed 3,895 people in the past 19 months, with a little more than half of those individuals being civilians. It is horrific that so many lives have been lost to a process of obtaining governance and legitimacy.

The authority that IS possesses over its devoted followers is impressive. Terrorist groups are only as strong as their members and, clearly, IS has the members necessary to establish their existence as a dominant group. The November 2015 attacks in Paris wouldn’t have occurred the way they did by mere coincidence—the followers of the extremist group successfully carried out the gruesome tasks that the radical group dictates.

IS is not the only group in the region seeking legitimacy, either. Palestine—located on the western bank of Israel—is not completely recognized as having a legitimate government. The situation in the region has caused tension to the extent of immense death and devastation. The United States does not recognize Palestine as an official state due to its foreign aid relation to Israel.

Where the two groups differ is their methodology toward legitimacy. IS has put a stop in its diplomatic system and has perked up its economy and militia in order to use terrorism as a tactic while Palestine has established a diplomatic approach to addressing its problems.

Syrian efforts to contain and exterminate IS have proven to be somewhat effective. In the course of the last year, the frequency of IS attacks has slowed down. Foreign states have intervened to address IS activities with airstrikes and infiltration.

After the attacks on Damascus, Syrian Prime Minister Wael Nader al-Halqui said, “The aim of this cowardly and desperate terrorist attack is to raise the morale of the defeated terrorist groups following the great victories that our brave army has accomplished in several areas.” The remarks shine a light on the advancement against IS, but fail to acknowledge the death of civilians.

This is exactly what IS thrives on: the negligence of the government toward its civilians. The legitimacy within the radical Islamic group originates in the protection and resources the group provides to its members—all things the government lacks.

IS is a force to be reckoned with. There is no denying that the motives of the radical extremist group will continue to bring bloodshed. Until a proper solution is proposed, the world’s best hope to minimize these terrorist activities in the name of legitimacy is the coalition.

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.

Bloomberg’s history makes him inadequate presidential candidate

This election year is too dramatic, even for the plot of a daytime soap. The candidates are so out of left field that we’re forced to appreciate all over again exactly how preposterous Sen. John McCain’s claim to being a “maverick” was in 2008. This election is absurd; the same year an avowed socialist is shaking the foundations of the Democratic Party by railing against the excessive power of the overly wealthy, a prominent billionaire is doing the same thing to the Republican Party by exercising his power to say whatever he wants.

But now Michael Bloomberg—the billionaire former mayor of New York City—has allowed his aides to leak his plans to join the race if there’s an opening. According to Forbes, Bloomberg is worth over $38 billion. By comparison, Forbes estimates Donald Trump’s net worth at around $4 billion. But as many moderate New Yorkers tell it, Bloomberg in the mix is exactly what this zany presidential race needs.

A Bloomberg presidency would be vastly preferable to the fascist absurdities of Trump’s plans for this country, but potential supporters should be sure to take a close look—Bloomberg’s career demonstrates exactly what Sen. Bernie Sanders says is wrong with this country.

In 2013, Bloomberg told The New York Times, “If we can find a bunch of billionaires around the world to move here, that would be a godsend, because that’s where the revenue comes to take care of everybody else.”

That statement is pretty misleading. In New York City, billionaires pay around 1 percent of the average property tax rate. The reasons for this are varied; for one thing, their condos are assessed at prices far below what they were sold for. To say that the ultra-rich are doing more of a service to New York by living there than the city is doing for them is an extremely shaky proposition.

One contributor to this problem is the 421-a tax exemption. First passed in 1971, this controversial exemption gives developers a 10-year tax break for developing on vacant land. Its continuation has recently been justified by proposing that these breaks can help incentivize the development of more affordable housing units, but in reality many ultra-rich condominium developments like One57 are claiming the exemption as well.

While he was mayor, Bloomberg did hike property taxes overall but did nothing to combat the 421-a tax exemption or other loopholes in the tax code that prevent the ultra-wealthy from contributing to the public good at an equal rate. He has not disclosed his tax returns since leaving office—though we do know that he started buying more and more real estate as the end of his term in office approached—and he keeps his investments private, so it is unknown how much he has invested in real estate.

While expensive condominium developments like One57 claim tax breaks, the waiting list for Section 8 housing vouchers in New York numbers in the hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, construction of new affordable housing complexes lacks the funding to keep up with demand.

Bloomberg had indicated that he will be more likely to enter the race if Sanders is nominated than Hillary Clinton. If he does, he might find something else coming to him. As the Iowa caucuses illustrated, the American people are catching on to the problem of inequality and they are not happy about it.

Black History Month integral to preservation, respect of culture

February is Black History Month, a time when we learn about and celebrate the accomplishments of black people whose efforts are virtually ignored by general history throughout the rest of the year.

Every February in recent memory, however, has brought about the same controversy regarding the existence of the celebratory month itself. Many people—often white people—argue that Black History Month unfairly puts black people on a pedestal or it somehow ignores the historical accomplishments of white people. The usual counterargument is that most of history is whitewashed and people of color and their accomplishments are written out of history unless it fits a “white man’s burden” or slavery narrative.

This year, Clueless actress Stacey Dash refueled the controversy with her stance against the month. The actress made an appearance on Fox News and argued that Black History Month—as well as the Black Entertainment Network and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s Image Awards—further fuels segregation in the United States. Because of Dash’s black identity and her affiliation with Fox News, there is a lot of backlash against her comments for being ignorant and offensive.

One response to Dash, however, was inspirational and productive. Because Of Them We Can—a motivational campaign to excite young people about Black History Month—released a video of black children’s reactions to Dash’s call to cancel the month-long holiday.

The children said, “What? Excuse me?” in response to Dash and began to describe why Black History Month is important—for celebrating black people’s excellence and beauty without negativity or stereotyping. They also emphasized how black history is more than just slavery.

Although these are the usual arguments to support the month, seeing black children express enthusiasm about their history illustrates how important Black History Month is for combating the erasure of black historical figures and role models.

In retaliation to Black History Month, some people have suggested that we should create a White History Month—for all of the white people forgotten or overshadowed in February. I think White History Month is a great idea—there are many historical actions of white people that are unknown or not thoroughly taught in schools.

One thing that should be taught during White History Month is the brutal truth about white settlers’ treatment of indigenous peoples in America—such as the genocide of millions of people and their cultures just on our mainland alone. We should teach about the mass extinction of indigenous tribes and cultures in Central and South America, Africa, Asia and Australia by American and European imperialists, which continues to occur today.

While we learn about civil rights activists during Black History Month, we should learn about the local and federal politicians who enforced segregation and discrimination laws around the country during White History Month. Additionally, we should learn about the racist, murderous groups of white supremacists in the U.S. that murdered innocent black people and their families during this era—and to the extent these groups and ideologies survived the time and permeate our current politics and culture.

It is easy to argue that Black History Month divides us when we exercise a colorblind ideology. Not all people in our country are treated equally; we wouldn’t need Black History Month if black history, art and literature were regularly taught as an important cultural aspect of America. Unfortunately that is not the case in most public or even private school systems—and to deny Americans knowledge of black achievements and contributions further divides us all and erases people of color from our nation’s history.

Iowa Caucus exemplifies frivolity of American politics

The Iowa Caucus is not only famous for its importance as a predictor of candidate success, but also as an odd spectacle of American political tradition. This year’s caucus highlighted the importance of the coin toss—a tradition used to break ties in precincts that award an odd number of delegates, according to NPR.

Candidates Hillary Clinton and United States Sen. Bernie Sanders were separated by only 0.3 percent after many precincts performed coin tosses to award delegates. This system is a bit confusing, which is probably why the results of the caucus were met with such backlash.

It seems that criticism of the coin toss system took the form of accusing Clinton of cheating or fraud. CNN reported that coin tosses were used back in 2008 and is a Democratic Party tradition, yet the practice seemed unheard of by many on social media who were suspicious of the Clinton campaign. It is remarkable that Clinton and Sanders were only decimals apart from winning, but the coin toss was not a sly move by the organizers to give Clinton an unfair advantage as words spread across the Internet were implying.

Ignorance of the political and electoral process is common and not exactly something to be ashamed about. A coin toss seems like too crude or lazy a policy for something as important as a presidential election and not something the average American may realize is actually legal and practiced. Primaries are relatively straightforward—people can just vote for the candidate of their choice in their aligned party in a closed primary or both parties in an open primary.

The coin toss isn’t even the oddest part of a caucus. For the Democratic candidate, voters must stand on opposite sides of a room in support of particular candidates, get others to join their side and eliminate low-count candidates until the viable winners are revealed.

The simple voting style of primaries seems like an easier and more organized option. When examining the caucus system, it seems it is only still in practice for the mere excitement and spectacle rather than actual efficiency. It may be time to retire the traditions and move toward a political system that is easy to understand and easy to keep clean and accurate.

On Oregon militia takeover

Amidst media coverage of the upcoming presidential election, an important event seems to have slipped through the cracks: an armed militia took over a government building. The militia takeover—an event stereotypically associated with the Middle East or Latin America—is going on in rural Oregon. The dispute stems from two ranchers: Dwight Hammond, Jr. and his son Steven Hammond. Together, they ranch on a large space of land adjacent to land publically owned by the Bureau of Land Management. The two committed arson in 2001, which led to the destruction of 139 acres of BLM’s property. According to the United States Department of Justice, the two set the fire in order to mask their illegal deer hunt, though the two claimed it was to destroy invasive species on their land. Additionally, a second fire was started in 2006 during a “burn ban”—all firefighters in the area were fighting a large blaze, and controlled fires were not allowed to be set during that time.

Dwight Hammond eventually served three months in prison and his son served 366 days in 2013. Federal law, however, holds that fires that cause damage to public property but result in no injury or death are domestic terrorism. The domestic terrorism charge carries a minimum sentence of five years—a big difference from the sentences the pair originally served.

Ironically, a Republican Congress enacted the law used to prosecute the Hammonds after the Oklahoma bombings, pushed forward by the same right-wing ideals that the militiamen hold. The harshness of the Hammond’s punishment that is being protested by those militias is one their political ancestors fought for.

In response to this sentencing, a group of protestors led by Ammon Bundy—the son of Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher known for instigating an armed standoff with government officials in 2014 over his refusal to remove cattle from government land—took over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on Jan. 2, the headquarters of this federal land.

Although federal law enforcement has jurisdiction on the matter, no federal or local law enforcement approached the building until Tuesday Jan. 26. The most recent development showed that Bundy and his militia were on the move toward another Oregon city and planned to make an appearance at an anti-government rally. Officers arrested the group after exchanging gunshots resulting in one militia member being killed and one officer injured. According to Katu News, the seven members are facing charges of “conspiracy to impede officers of the United States from discharging their official duties, through the use of force, intimidation or threats.” For a politically charged event like this, it is interesting to think whether the militiamen would have been seized earlier or if media coverage would’ve increased if they were of a minority group.

It may be difficult for citizens in the Northwest to understand such passion for land, but it isn’t hard for us to understand the difference between lawful protest and radical takeover. It is a disgrace to see lawful American political protest overwhelmed by those fighting against “federal tyranny.” If we refer back to any of the protests in Baltimore or Ferguson, Missouri we saw military equipment used and curfews set in place very soon after the protests began.

The law enforcement-discrimination debate is one used sparingly, but it is interesting that this hostile takeover went on for this long without any swift action. It is frightening to see Americans abandon lawful and civil discourse so willingly in exchange for violent and anarchical means.

Chipotle scandal echoes larger health issues within food industry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academy Awards continue to exclude actors, actresses of color

Millions of viewers will tune in for the 88th Academy Awards on Feb 28. Comedian Chris Rock will host this year’s ceremony as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences selects who they believe to be the best artists in the film industry this past year. Due to recent controversy surrounding nominations, however, there will be a few familiar faces missing from this year’s awards. Some celebrities of color have decided to boycott the Oscars—most notably actors Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith, who released a video calling for the boycott on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. In the video, Pinkett Smith said, “The Academy has the right to acknowledge whoever they choose, to invite whoever they choose. And now I think that it's our responsibility now to make the change.”

The nominations for this year’s ceremony triggered a response of outrage from many industry professionals for one reason: every single actor and actress nomination was given to white actors and actresses. The anger sparked by this announcement is entirely justified, considering that this is not the first, but second year in a row that actors of color were snubbed by the Academy. One year and we could maybe call it a coincidence, but two years in a row shows a systematic issue in both the Academy and the film industry as a whole.

The controversy has created a buzz regarding the demographics of those in the Academy who watch the year’s films and hand out award nominations. The Los Angeles Times recently conducted a study of Academy members and the results were unsurprising: 94 percent of Academy voters are white and 77 percent are male.

With so few people of color deciding who is the “best” in the industry, there are fewer people of color recognized. The results of the nominations for the past two years are essentially suggesting that cinematic greatness is associated with whiteness.

In both years, there were many deserving actors denied nominations. At last year’s awards, the critically acclaimed film Selma was ignored in all acting categories. This year, Will Smith was nominated for a Golden Globe award for his work in Concussion, but could not garner a nomination from the Academy.

“For 20 opportunities to celebrate actors of color, actresses of color, to be missed last year is one thing; for that to happen again this year is unforgivable,” Selma star David Oyelowo said.

The lack of diversity at the Academy Awards, however, could also be attributed to the few opportunities that people of color have in the film industry as a whole. In a recent interview with Variety, actor George Clooney spoke out on this subject, asking, “How many options are available to minorities in film, particularly in quality films?”

The lack of representation at the Academy Awards may just be symptomatic of a deeper, underlying issue: the limited representation of people of color in the entertainment industry as a whole.

Flint water crisis exemplifies discriminatory government neglect

When discussing environmentalism, mainstream discourse addresses the human race’s part in destroying ecosystems and endangering both wildlife and our planet. Rarely do we bring attention to the humans that are victims of environmental disasters at the hands of our own corrupt governments. The current environmental disaster state of Flint, Michigan isn’t just troubling, it is devastating: the city’s population has been consuming toxic, lead-contaminated water for years under the knowledge of its negligent government.

Flint previously obtained water from Detroit’s clean water system until 2014 when former emergency manager Darnell Earley transferred Flint’s water system to the corrosive and unsafe Flint River water. Multiple government officials refused to return back to Detroit’s safe water system—citing its high cost—despite multiple claims that Flint River water was dangerous. One such claim from a nearby General Motors plant said the water was so corrosive that it rusted the plant’s car parts.

Current Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder appointed relevant officials on the matter—such as the emergency managers—in 2012. Thus, many of the harmful decisions resulting in the toxic water disaster lead back to Snyder’s apathetic and corrupt administration that has yet to face consequences for its abuse of power.

Recently, residents of Flint were able to garner national attention for their situation through social media. Residents tweeted pictures of the brown and yellow water that came from their faucets and pictures of rashes and skin lesions caused by toxic water consumption. A state of emergency was not announced in Flint until Jan. 5 of this year—making us question whether the Snyder administration would have continued to sweep the issue under the rug if not for the national attention.

Beyond the issue of an apathetic government is the mistreatment of poor, minority communities in major cities. According to the United States Census Bureau, Flint’s population is 56.6 percent black and 41.5 percent of the community lives below the poverty line. It is not uncommon for poor communities to be mistreated and exploited by local governments; they often lack the capital and resources to defend themselves against this corruption. Additionally, undocumented immigrants in Flint have been continually denied access to free cases of bottled water as proof of identification is required to receive the water.

This suspiciously sounds like a case of environmental racism. The local government did not seem to care about the health and safety of a poor minority community until it was called out publicly and pressured by more powerful officials from around the country. It also did not efficiently disclose information to residents who do not understand English, thus letting some residents continue to consume the dangerous water without knowing.

For Snyder’s administration, this issue is more about remorse for getting caught rather than a desire to help victims. Celebrities and nonprofits around the country are donating money and thousands of cases of water to help Flint residents, as it is currently unknown how or when the problem will be solved.

The federal emergency aid to Flint is currently capped at $5 million and mostly covers the cost of water filters and filter cartridges for residents. Not only should Snyder be impeached, but President Barack Obama should convince Congress to allocate more funds to help Flint. Money should be put toward adding Flint back to Detroit’s water system and making concrete plans for future, safe water systems.

It is not enough to just work with the Snyder administration to alleviate their disastrous actions. Changes need to be made not only within the local Flint government, but in greater federal laws to protect the residents of poor cities from becoming victims of failing infrastructure.

Kingston friends, family deserve respect in time of mourning

In light of the tragedy that occurred on the morning of Jan. 17, the Geneseo campus community and administration have come together in support of the family and friends of seniors Kelsey Annese and Matthew Hutchinson. Their lives were brutally taken from them in their athletic and personal primes. Although I believe the response and support from the college has been admirable, others don’t share my view. The Lamron recently received a series of three anonymous voicemails from callers—claiming to be from California—that criticized President Denise Battles and the administration’s response to the tragedy. The callers claimed that by not specifically excluding Colin Kingston’s friends and family in our thoughts and prayers, we were somehow dishonoring the memories of Annese and Hutchinson.

Let’s be clear: what Kingston did was deplorable and horrifying and his actions deserve harsh condemnation. That being said, we as a community need to support his friends and family in what is an unthinkably difficult time.

First, we need to examine why Kingston took the actions that he did. Kingston was—in all likelihood—severely mentally ill for the last 48 hours of his life. Rumors have circulated that Kingston made suicidal comments to individuals on Jan. 16. Assuming this is correct, we can conclude that he was clinically depressed in some way, shape or form. Although his actions were terrible, his mental illness warrants some level of empathy.

Moreover, the Kingston family lost a son and a brother. I don’t want to speak for the family, but I can only imagine the mortification and grief they must be feeling. His family did not support his actions—and all the evidence supports this. Kingston’s father called 911 right away after his son called him saying that he had hurt two individuals and planned to hurt himself. Given the circumstances, Kingston’s father acted fitly.

As a community, we need to respond with empathy toward Kingston’s friends and family. While I listened to the voicemails, I thought of my own sister. Had she been mentally ill and committed a terrible act, I would be horrified, embarrassed and ashamed. I would be distraught not only because a person I loved did something atrocious, but also because I would never see them alive again. I never want to as much as imagine this situation, let alone live it.

In order to heal as a community, we need to stand together. Geneseo lost three lives on Jan. 17. Three families lost someone irreplaceable. Nearly every student on this campus knows someone deeply affected by the tragedy. Condemning the family of the perpetrator is not a healthy or effective means of coping.

We should embrace the Kingstons and welcome them to mourn our losses together. By doing this, we open the door for a critical discussion on mental illness and how we can prevent a tragedy like this from happening again.

America's election practices need discipline, restructuring

It is officially 2016—the year we elect the new President of the United States. Before we reach November, however, the presidential election pomp will kick into full gear and campaigns will—somehow—be more dramatic and obnoxious than they’ve been so far. As we’ve previously witnessed during party debates, speeches and even “Saturday Night Live” sketches, this current presidential election has been an embarrassing rollercoaster for the U.S. Our election process showed major flaws in July 2015 when a 15-year-old candidate under the name Deez Nuts was able to file an intent-to-run form with the Federal Election Committee and actually polled at 8–9 percent in three different states.

As Donald Trump gains more support in the polls with his controversial and offensive comments, the chance of Trump earning the Republican candidacy looks less like a passing joke and more like an actual possibly.

If America’s presidential election cannot be taken seriously, how can we expect to be taken seriously as a country? Our election revolves around sensational journalism and candidates one-upping each other for the next viral hashtag. When our election season goes on for basically two years, there’s a lot of room for frivolity.

Canada, on the other hand, recently endured one of their longest campaign seasons ever—and it only lasted 11 weeks. A typical Canadian election lasts about 50 days. The first truly meaningful day of our election comes on Monday Feb. 1 with the Iowa Caucuses—more than 280 days before Election Day.

While Americans may think 50 days isn’t enough to get to know a candidate, perhaps America can create a happy medium. By now, most Americans probably know who they want to elect as each party’s candidate and probably for the presidential position itself—even though we still have to endure another 10 months of caucuses, primaries and insufferable debates.

Perhaps in the future, we could change our policy to limit campaign seasons to, for example, no longer than six months before Election Day. Major media outlets who gain a lot of advertising and marketing revenue from election coverage may vehemently refuse a change, but it would make the rest of our lives much more pleasant.

Garnaat & Hartsough: On religion as integral part of academic, scientific discovery

In the Nov. 19 issue of The Lamron, the editorial “Religious beliefs should not have place in intellectual discourse” about a recent MacVittie Lecture speaker suggested that there was no basis to the popularly held assumption that faith is conducive to war or atrocity. On the contrary, lecturer William T. Cavanaugh held that it is nigh impossible to separate religious motivations from secular ones. How can we say that wars fought because of ideologies like communism or democracy—ideologies entirely divorced from religion—are less common or harmful than those fought for God?

Responding to the argument that it is unfeasible to separate secular and religious motivations behind violence, the editorial claims that one should classify religion as anything lacking in “scientific and rational scrutiny” and that anything outside the safe boundaries of a purely materialistic perspective is “an intellectual failure.” The editorial states that the time has come for us to stop the “insidious effects” of allowing people to talk about religion and to “shame the use of faith” when we find it and drive it “out of public discourse.”

One would imagine that the history, political science and philosophy departments will be relieved to hear that their services are no longer required on a liberal arts campus.

The historical record does not at all support the idea of religion and science being at odds. Rather, the two were one and the same until only the most recent century.

The founder of systematic logical reasoning Aristotle wrote at length on metaphysics, while figures like St. Aquinas and St. Augustine pioneered the rational study of the world and religious principles. The only reason we have achieved such powerful advances in geometry, mathematics, logic and science is due to the knowledge discovered and preserved by Catholic scholastics and Muslim theorists like Averroes and Omar Khayyam—all of whom were deeply religious.

Furthermore, the first advocates of the scientific method—Sir Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal and Sir Francis Bacon—were all devout believers as well and used science to support those beliefs. The supposed incompatibility of intelligence with faith is invalid.

If religious thought were chased out of public discourse, this would leave an incredible problem—we would be laden with scientific facts and figures about how things are, but absolutely nothing about how things should be. Philosopher David Hume calls this the “is-ought problem”—that science produces facts about the world but provides no basis for morality.

There are no particles of justice, no atoms of freedom, no electrons of right or wrong. Thus, there is no way that someone can make statements about how things ought to be without accepting some kind of assumption or willingness to believe or have faith.

When the editorial claims that we should disallow religious belief in academic discourse, we must ask on what grounds would we do so or to what invisible standard we are appealing. If you cannot prove that the world should be this way through fact, then question what your argument is based on, if not based in faith.

The editorial claims that society regards religion as off-limits to examination and that no other attendees in the lecture “dared challenge” Cavanaugh. Perhaps if the editorial was hindered from being written, this would be true. But if we are asked to “shame the use” of ideas we disagree with out of any discussion, we must ask whose beliefs are actually at risk of being suppressed. We must question if we are abandoning intellectual freedom in favor of ideological conformity.