Geneseo must prioritize sustainability in near future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baseball game disrespects victims of Castro regime

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muslim characters in children’s books offer invaluable inclusion

Publishing company Simon & Schuster recently made attempts to tackle the lack of diversity in literature by promoting children’s books with Muslim characters. The diversity issue in publishing is one that doesn’t receive the attention it deserves. Exposing children to various cultures is extremely important and literature is an excellent medium to help them learn about traditions different from their own. There are consequences to this absence of cultural variations. If children are not exposed to different ways of life at a young age, they will have difficulty accepting them later on. Additionally, minority children who don’t see themselves represented in literature may feel alienated from their peers.

According to The New York Times, Simon & Schuster decided to create a new children’s imprint named Salaam Reads. An imprint is a trade name under which works are published and Salaam Reads is dedicated to publishing literature that centers on Muslim characters and stories. Newsweek reported that Salaam Reads will start publishing chapter and picture books as well as middle school and young adult titles in 2017.

Simon & Schuster Executive Editor Zareen Jaffery will lead this imprint. According to the Simon & Schuster Team Page, she focuses on “commercial and literary young adult and middle grade fiction, as well as teen non-fiction.”

Jaffery grew up as a Pakistani-American Muslim in Connecticut, noting her own personal struggles growing up with a lack of diversity in children’s literature. In an interview with Story and Chai, Jaffery discussed her personal views on the white-centric nature of children’s literature. “I acknowledge the industry has a long way to go to correct the current imbalance,” she said.

Under the direction of Jaffery, Simon & Shuster’s new imprint will work to neutralize the cultural inequalities in the publishing industry. To do so, they are specifically creating a platform for Muslim children’s literature—a great step in the right direction.

Jaffery made it clear that she is aware that children are not necessarily reading books to be “enlightened” about other cultures and ways of life. Books are primarily a means of entertainment for younger generations and that doesn’t need to change. It is ignorant, however, to believe that things such as the race, class, gender or religious beliefs of a character do not affect the child reading the book. The New York Times article clarified that the newly published books’ main focus will not be Islamic doctrines or theology, but instead will be the everyday experiences of young characters.

Simon & Schuster’s recognition of the lack of diversity in children’s publishing will likely fuel necessary conversations about the neglected topic. Jaffery herself urged individuals to “reflect on the role you play in the book publishing process and think on ways you can help create a more just and inclusive world.”

Increased diversity in children’s books can aid in the creation of more accepting future generations. It can also give minority children a sense of belonging and construct an environment in which they embrace their differences—instead of feeling ashamed of them.

Every child deserves to read a book that they can see themselves in and Simon & Schuster is working to make that possible.

Socialism event fails to exemplify true political ideals

I attended International Youth and Students for Social Equality’s “A Socialist Perspective on the 2016 Elections” last semester, eager to learn more than just my basic understanding of socialism. After the event, however, I left disappointed and frustrated. The featured speaker Andre Damon put on a presentation that was simply a glorified PowerPoint, which was unenthusiastic and lacked passion. He also openly denounced the Democratic Party with unfair and inaccurate criticisms.

At the event, I mentioned the most iconic face of socialism—legendary revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara—and inquired if IYSSE considered him a “true” socialist. They disagreed, saying that during the Cuban Revolution, Guevara and the rest of Fidel Castro’s 26th of July Movement organized and assisted agrarian peasants rather than the “working class.” I was told that, because of this, he was disqualified from being a socialist.

Guevara—who was a medical doctor—provided medical treatment free to ailing peasants throughout Latin America. He was subsequently radicalized by all of the extreme poverty and gross inequalities he witnessed. Guevara was an individual that participated in four revolutions—all on foreign soil far from his native Argentina—and addressed the United Nations to speak out against American imperialism.

It seems that Guevara’s many accomplishments do not meet IYSSE’s criteria to be a socialist because of their literal interpretation of Marxism. A real socialist is not someone who just actively contributes to whacky leftist websites. A real socialist does not refuse to vote and eventually becomes a slave to dreams of perfect equality that lack any pragmatism—all the while drowning in a pool of one’s own self-righteousness.

IYSSE also condemned Sen. Bernie Sanders very harshly through similar ideas. Sanders may not meet the textbook definition of what a socialist is, but he is basically the lesser of the evils in the context of current presidential candidates. After all, many college students’ newfound interest in socialism is a result of “feeling the Bern.” Yet, Sanders was dismissed as a pro-establishment-warmonger.

I believe not voting Democrat is hurting the individual’s personal interest if they self-identify as liberal—or even just to the left—on the political spectrum. Politics are all about picking the lesser evil. Everyone has ideals, but realistically thinking, a socialist independent candidate won’t get elected in our current political landscape. I fear that by not thinking rationally, little progress will be made—and Sanders should not be criticized for the progress his democratic-socialist platform has already brought to the table.

This event seemed to be a great way to introduce curious students to socialism, but I believe it ultimately soured people's taste on the topic. The speaker and the presentation were absolutely unsatisfactory and made questionable claims about socialist politics and agendas. I often refer to my own political ideology with tongue in cheek as “left of Che Guevara” on the political spectrum.

Nevertheless, I also try to think practically. Anyone can organize events and imagine their priggish ideals becoming a reality; not everyone can take action. To quote Guevera, “The revolution is not an apple that falls when it’s ripe. You have to make it fall.” Power cannot be gained by delusional and impractical ideas—it must be seized.u

Scalia conspiracies deserve media recognition, not dismissal

The circumstances of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death were suspicious to say the least. By and large, however, mainstream news sources and political pundits alike have branded those who have questioned these circumstances as unhinged conspiracy theorists. But considering the high stakes involved, such questioning is only rational. Scalia was found dead at the age of 79 in his room at Cibolo Creek Ranch in West Texas on Feb. 13. No security detail had accompanied him to the hunting resort. He presumably died of a heart attack, but his body was not autopsied, even though Cibolo Creek Ranch owner John Poindexter reported that Scalia was found with a pillow over his head. More recently, it has come to light that the late justice spent his last hours in the company of members of an ancient, elite secret society of Austrian hunters called the International Order of St. Hubertus.

There is something objectively unique—if not downright fishy—about all of this. The resulting vacancy on the nine-seat court has triggered what many have referred to as a “Constitutional crisis.” The critical tiebreaking seat is at stake and Republican senators are refusing to even hear a new nominee speak as long as President Barack Obama remains in office.

It is not difficult to imagine—hypothetically—why a left-leaning, politically motivated group of individuals would have wanted Scalia or any other right-wing justice dead. Though Republican obstructionism is far from unprecedented, the Senate’s united front is surprising to many and perhaps would not have been foreseen.

The Washington Post attempted to strike down such questions with an article titled “Conspiracy theories swirl around the death of Antonin Scalia” and, days later, another: “The psychology behind why people believe conspiracy theories about Scalia’s death.” Similarly, Raw Story published “Why rational people believe stupid Scalia conspiracy theories” in their science section. For every homemade blog post or YouTube video speculating about whether Scalia may have been killed, there is a bluntly dismissive mainstream media article denouncing such tin foil hat theorizing.

The problem with these lines of attack against the would-be conspiracy theorists is that the burden of proof does not lie with the casual reader of the news. As a curious person, I am not responsible for coming up with a cogent theory of what really happened to Scalia. He very well may have died of natural causes, but—given the aftermath of his death as well as the strange events that preceded this death—I feel that someone in a position to offer more than mere conjecture should be investigating and asking the questions that many so-called conspiracy theorists have been asking.

There is certainly a truth, but that does not mean that it fits into the mainstream media narrative of this or any other given event. Whether for political reasons, money reasons or out of pure laziness, the media—most of which is owned by six major conglomerates—sometimes offers something other than fact or something less than the whole truth. When this happens, labeling anyone who would call journalistic ethics into question as a paranoid, basement-dwelling conspiracy theorist or—even lower on the moral totem pole—a contrarian Internet troll becomes more or less necessary to maintain legitimacy.

As much as I would prefer to believe that there was no foul play involved in Scalia’s death, I cannot help but wonder about other possibilities. It will always be easy for journalists and politicians to dismiss critical thinkers as conspiracy theorists. What is difficult is asking questions, considering alternate explanations, doing research and getting comfortable with a certain degree of uncertainty.

On student candidates’ campaigns for Village Board

Geneseo students will have an unprecedented opportunity to shift the balance of power in a very constructive direction in the March 15 Geneseo Village Board elections. Freshman Mary Rutigliano and junior Matthew Cook are running as independents to fill the two available positions—and students should turn out in force to support them. Especially noting the currently tense atmosphere following the rollout of the Social Host Law, dialogue between the college and the town is particularly vital for the functioning of our community.

Rutigliano and Cook are strong candidates who seem eager to learn about local issues and to listen to voices from the town and the college in making decisions. Rutigliano grew up in Geneseo and knows firsthand many of the issues the town faces. She and Cook—a political science major—cited the difficulties that Dansville has experienced after the town’s water treatment plant broke down from years of underinvestment as a useful case study. These are two intelligent, curious people who will make good public servants.

They also expressed their belief that the Social Host Law needs to be amended or enforced differently so that students are protected by the law, rather than preyed upon. This law is a case in which it is easy to see how input from students—as well as permanent residents—could lead to policies that are more fair and amenable to all.

Rutigliano and Cook are also much stronger candidates than their opponents. The local Republican Party is running one candidate—Leslie Carson—for the two positions. Carson is married to a local police sergeant, which means that she will be prevented from participating in a number of major votes—including the budget—because they conflict directly with her personal interests.

On the Democratic side, the candidates are Bob Wilcox and Phil Jones. Wilcox was a strong advocate of the Social Host Law and if Rutigliano and Cook win the election, Wilcox will be voted out of office. This would be a welcome development following his recent comments expressing the ignorant opinion that time constraints make students unfit to hold public office.

Additionally, he said that students should not hold public office because they do not pay property taxes—never mind that 44 percent of students live off campus and that decisions about businesses, street repairs and law enforcement affect all of us just as well.

Older generations claim that our generation is politically complacent. The recent presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders challenges this notion, but it is not only for big-time outsider candidates that we can become excited. When we have the opportunity to support qualified, concerned candidates like Rutigliano and Cook, we should seize it because the decisions made at the local level are often the ones that ending up impacting our lives the most.

To vote in the local election, students have to be registered to vote in Livingston County. The deadline to register to vote is Friday March 4 and most students will have to complete an absentee ballot because the election occurs over spring break. The deadline for that is Tuesday March 8.

Both forms can be found online at ny.elections.gov or in the Board of Elections Office in the county government building behind the court building on Court Street.

Student athletes’ fame creates precendent for leniency

Three University of Minnesota basketball players have been suspended for the rest of the season after one player tweeted explicit videos involving him and his teammates. The two videos depicted the players engaging in sex acts with women and the videos—and the Twitter account—were deleted shortly after. It is unknown why the videos were tweeted, but in the age of Internet revenge porn and the ease of hacking personal information, it’s a wonder why these athletes didn’t receive a harsher punishment. By tweeting the videos, the privacy of the players and the women involved was surrendered to a huge public audience.

The issue that many have with this situation is the influence that it has on aspiring athletes. One day, many of the athletes that we see and hear about will be obsolete and another generation of young athletes will emerge. This next generation could be the face of major league programs as early as 18 years old—as young and generally immature teenagers.

Social media has a huge presence in the lives of teenagers and young adults. The University of Minnesota basketball players have giant social media presences—some college athletes have well over 20,000 followers on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. Many of these followers could be young high school athletes who look to these players as role models—and in return were exposed to graphic and explicit sexual material.

Situations such as this and the many sexual assault and harassment cases that occur in high school, college and professional sports with minor consequences to the athletes show how athletes often receive special treatment and act as if they are above the law. A clear example of this is the recent filing in a Title XI lawsuit claiming that the University of Tennessee athletic department administration were aware that five football players committed sexual assaults, but allowed the athletes to remain in school and on campus without consequence.

This culture of protecting athletes to preserve sports programs or to protect university reputation can affect the way athletes view themselves and their actions. Athletes can tweet or Instagram incriminating or sensitive content and can get away with it, all without receiving serious criminal consequence. The student-athletes at Minnesota deserved to be suspended, but if the women in those videos choose to press charges or sue for breach of privacy, how far will administrations go to protect their athletes from further punishment?

When athletes—and influential celebrities in general—are protected from harsh consequences after committing inappropriate or criminal acts, it sets a precedent for future behavior. Young people often learn from experience and this experience sets a poor example for how socially, legally or morally negligent student-athletes of the future can act before receiving real punishment.

Condemning pesticides does not undo existing damage

The Food and Drug Administration recently announced that it would begin testing for glyphosate. The chemical is commonly known as Roundup and is global agribusiness giant Monsanto’s pesticide of choice.

Considering that the World Health Organization declared glyphosate a probable carcinogen in March 2015, this is good news. It would be much better news, however, if it had come earlier—and better still if the obviously dangerous, experimental chemical and others like it had never been distributed on such a massive scale in the first place.

Even if one holds that the process of genetic modification itself is not radically different from traditional genetic farming techniques, there is nothing traditional about the chemicals that accompany most GM foods. Chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides are certainly not intended for human consumption, but we humans inadvertently consume them all the time. We simply can’t avoid them; they stick to food, seep into groundwater and drain into rivers and oceans. 

Additionally, the vast swathes of genetically modified corn, soy and wheat fields that have all but consumed the American Midwest are decidedly unnatural, as well as entirely experimental. The manufactured chemicals and associated lack of biodiversity quickly deplete the soil in these regions, leading to desertification and difficult farming years. Monocultures are also much more susceptible to diseases and die-outs; the Irish Potato Famine is just one unfortunate and highly relevant historical example.

Experiments like the Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial—which has maintained side-by-side high-tech chemical and low-tech organic farms since 1981—have repeatedly disproven the myths perpetuated by agribusiness companies. These trials demonstrate that although factory farms may produce high yields in their first few years, they begin to underperform once they begin to wear out the land.

As pests and weeds become increasingly resistant to older chemicals, these agrichemical farms require more and more new chemical “solutions.” This means that GM foods may actually be much less likely to “feed the world” than organically farmed foods, regardless of what Monsanto’s website says. The fact that world hunger is a problem of distribution rather than sufficient food production does not help the company’s case.

Clearly, the safety of genetically modified foods is far from established. Regardless of what the FDA determines based on its chemical testing of glyphosate, the problems associated with agrochemical agriculture neither begin nor end with a single pesticide.

The upshot is that a lot of individuals, state governments and federal governments alike have recently taken action regarding Monsanto’s bad business practices. Several states sued the company in 2015 for allegedly knowing but failing to disclose the cancer risk associated with glyphosate. Mexico is also suing the company and agribusiness giant DuPont/Pioneer for various damages.

This kind of public pressure is most likely the real reason why the FDA finally decided to begin testing for glyphosate. Of course, there is no need to wait for the FDA to run their tests and mandate a switch from Roundup to some other, very likely just as dangerous chemical.

As consumers, we have the power to take our health into our own hands. In the face of carcinogenic and unsustainable GM operations, we can instead choose organic, locally-sourced foods. Meanwhile, as citizens, we can and should speak out against dangerous, monopolistic corporate practices whenever possible.

Kesha ruling perpetuates rape culture in music industry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colorism still prevalent, damaging to minority groups

Colorism is an issue that is rarely paid significant attention. The term signifies prejudice and discrimination in respect to the lightness or darkness of the skin of members within the same ethic community. Harmful stereotypes further marginalize ethnic groups into factions that simply cannot combat the malicious deeds of racism.

One misconception that numerous individuals encounter is that colorism is restricted by geographical boundaries and generational differences. Methodology used to carry out discriminatory actions changes over location and history. One could look at the micro-aggressions within mainstream media, advertisements and news outlets to visualize the basis of racial inequities.

The black community continuously suffers from colorism. Bill Duke’s documentary Dark Girls illustrates the intensity and history that led to this colorism in the black community in the United States.

After slavery, the “Brown Paper Bag Test” arose in the 20th century. This test subdivided the African-American community when it came to social acceptance in institutions like fraternities, sororities and even churches. The test decided that if a person’s skin was lighter than a paper bag, they were accepted; if their skin was darker than a paper bag, they were rejected.

Most individuals assume that just because we live in a more accepting society, colorism has somewhat faded. But colorism didn’t fade—it morphed into something unrecognizable by previous generations.

More recently, colorism is illustrated in the Thai beauty company Seoul Secret’s January advertisement which was heavily criticized by CNN and other media outlets. The commercial’s actress Cris Horwang says, “Just being white, you will win.” She continues to bluntly admit, “The whiteness I have invested in will just vanish.” At the end of the commercial, the actress’ skin shifted from a fair tone to a ridiculous charcoal color.

Seoul Secret reacted swiftly to the negative attention garnered by the commercial and decided to remove the video. The Thai community, however, does not ostracize commercials with similar messages due to colorism becoming the norm.

Clearly, the company is trying to convince its consumers the idea that the whiter someone is, the better. At first glance, it is easily identifiable that these Western ideals are detrimental to Thai society—especially in an era when families have easy access to television and exploitative marketing tactics. When children view these kinds of commercials, they are going to associate white with success and dark with failure, initiating a division between children and their own social groups. 

Children are also exposed to this whitewashed standard through children’s shows on Disney Channel or Nickelodeon. Protagonists of these shows almost always have fairer skin than the actors in the show’s supporting cast. The same can be said about children’s books and toys—whitewashed characters and imagery contribute to the ideals that the media portrays.

Colorism is a detrimental side effect of Westernized influence on ethnic groups. In order to combat the malevolent means of colorism, societies need to begin to change their standards of beauty in relations to success and power.

There is no real plausible way to eradicate this problem rather than just bringing awareness to the situation and embracing self-acceptance. Rejoice in your skin, because superficial features shouldn’t determine beauty and success.

Trump, Sanders represent decline in establishment politics

The 2016 presidential election has shown us how limitless the boundaries of our political system really are. After former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s recent campaign suspension, it is all too clear how current candidates are reshaping the grip establishment politics has had on our political system.

It is obvious now how real estate mogul Donald Trump has a larger influence on conservative voters than anyone expected when he first announced his campaign for presidency. A billionaire candidate who has never held political office directly contrasts the establishment values that Bush, for example, relied on coming from a presidential family.

Democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders has had incredible success in social and political recognition despite being virtually unknown before the start of his campaign. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has been a household name—as the former First Lady—since before many students at Geneseo were even born.

The success of Trump and Sanders on either side of the race threatens the comfort and confidence held by the more established candidates—with Trump’s success even leading Bush to suspend his campaign and end any chance he had to win the Republican nomination. Additionally, Clinton has been infamously teased and criticized in the media for her seemingly desperate attempts to appeal to young voters through her use of social media and memes—not to mention her flip-flopping opinions on issues. Although Clinton is marginally ahead in primaries and caucuses so far, many did not expect Sanders to be so close.

Although most people who are not radically conservative hate Trump, his unorthodox tactics are working. It seems that being a household name from a presidential family is not a reason to be handed a party’s nomination. Bush has since failed and although Clinton is succeeding, she is barely ahead and working much harder than anyone would have expected a year ago.

The control of establishment politics on the election season is slowly subsiding, but this is actually beneficial. The culture of presidential families—akin to royal families—should, and will, come to an end. This election season has shown that unaffiliated or inexperienced candidates can go as far as recognized figures. Trump may not be our choice to prove this change, but it is a change nonetheless.

“SNL” video satirizes white peoples’ reactions to Beyoncé

Pop icon Beyoncé released a music video for her new song “Formation” on Feb. 6. The video thrust Beyoncé into the limelight for the past week, but not for the usual reasons. Beyoncé’s music is known for its immense commercial success and generally apolitical content. With the release of “Formation,” however, she is sending a clear message of black power and proclaiming support for the Black Lives Matter movement.

The response to this video has been overwhelmingly divided. One of the most impactful media responses came from “Saturday Night Live.” The Saturday Feb. 13 show featured the sketch “The Day Beyoncé Turned Black.” The sketch features a society of white people who hear “Formation” for the first time. Their world turns to chaos and dystopia upon realizing that Beyoncé is, in fact, a black woman with political views. One news reporter says, “It was the day white people lost their Beyoncé.”

The “SNL” sketch was extremely clever and succinctly summed up the issue that so many people have taken with the video. People simply do not want to accept that Beyoncé is a black woman with every right to be outraged. Beyoncé’s music has always been relatively uncontroversial. Her political messages were primarily geared toward the fact that she is a woman and a feminist—some listeners seem to be having a hard time acknowledging her position as a woman of color.

Beyoncé is undoubtedly one of the greatest pop culture icons of this generation. She is constantly praised for being openly sexual and her feminist anthem “***Flawless” had huge commercial success. The moment Beyoncé stopped catering to the whitewashed mainstream, however, she was criticized for being antagonistic and “attacking” white people.

Nearly every aspect of the media is geared toward catering to a white, middle class audience. The sketch exemplifies this, as one confused listener asks “Maybe this song isn’t for us?” to which a woman replies, “But usually everything is!”

Many white people looked at Beyoncé as a relatable celebrity—as long as she didn’t acknowledge her race. The moment she embraced a part of her identity that white people cannot relate to, she was attacked for being alienating and aggressive. Black celebrities—especially black women—are discouraged from acknowledging their blackness.

One of the most irritating things about the negative response to this video is that the video is hardly radical in its claims. The “SNL” sketch shows how outraged people are for Beyoncé simply stating that she is, in fact, black and proud to be so.

It is astounding that Beyoncé is being criticized for expressing black pride and anti-violence. “SNL’s” sketch definitely hit the nail on the head in representing the constant silencing of black voices by white people.

Two-party system detrimental to American political progress

We need to talk about partisan politics in America. More specifically, we need to talk about how the current two-party system undermines any chance a given candidate has at offering a unique vision for the country—or even a position on a single issue that is not “business as usual.”

In a prime example of partisan groupthink at work, the six remaining candidates for the Republican nomination are desperately attempting to “out-conservative” each other, as they did at their rowdy ninth debate in South Carolina on Saturday Feb. 13. Sen. Ted Cruz accused Donald Trump of being “a liberal” for not denouncing Planned Parenthood and for praising former President George W. Bush’s handling of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent Iraq War. In addition, virtually every candidate paid homage to former President Ronald Reagan at least once.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie—who ended his campaign after a sad sixth place finish in the New Hampshire Primary on Feb. 9—was once a strong contender with bipartisan appeal. He too was forced to join the GOP hive mind, however, after his notorious “Bridgegate” scandal robbed him of credibility on both sides of the aisle.

Instead of embracing Democrats and Republicans alike—as he was once known to do—Christie abandoned his more moderate ideals during his bid for the nomination. Unfortunately for him, however, his rebirth as a true conservative did not square with his brash, “tell it like it is” persona. Before suspending his campaign, Christie’s most significant act was to embarrass Sen. Marco Rubio who, in all his short-circuiting, line-repeating glory revealed that he is the ultimate establishment lap dog.

For his part, Rubio, too, has upped the ante recently on his rabid conservatism. In a thinly veiled attempt to prove that he is not a robot, he has become an impassioned, undiscriminating defender of all people and things Republican, effectively blaming the World Trade Center attacks on former President Bill Clinton.

On the Democratic side, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has continued to demonstrate that she will say anything to win. She has attempted to style herself as a “true progressive,” most recently allowing avowed socialist and surprise threat Sen. Bernie Sanders to push her to the left on Social Security expansion. In the past, Clinton has flip-flopped on marriage equality, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and much more—all to stay in line with what is in vogue according to the loudest voices in the Democratic Party.

Of course, these extreme party-embracing tactics are simply clever shows for the primary season. Party nominees’ ultimate strategy of moving to the center for the general election in order to appeal to independents and swing voters is equally dishonest.

The practice of changing one’s views to match a given group or demographic is insulting to the Americans who simply do not fit into a box—who I optimistically imagine to be most of them. These party politicians do not represent real values—Constitutional or personal. They simply represent carefully rehearsed talking points, as Rubio has reminded us.

The old adage “never trust a politician” is probably true, especially when considering that other old adage: “power corrupts.” The current two-party system rewards doublespeak and punishes consistency. Only when voters begin choosing politicians based on their own unique values—as opposed to how well they can conform to a broken party system—will we have a chance for an honest election cycle. As it stands now, there are only two very specific possibilities: the list of progressive values and the list of conservative values.

These all-or-nothing value catalogs ultimately lack nuance, diversity and pragmatism. Moreover, they fail to accurately represent the values of independent-minded constituents. It will take brave individuals who step outside precisely drawn party lines to bring more organic, truthful ideas to the White House—both on the side of the voters and the politicians.

Celebrity mental illness misunderstood, stigmatized

While mental illness and suicide are shamed in mainstream society, it is arguably even more stigmatized when victims are people who are expected to be perfect and successful in the public eye.

Celebrities who experience mental illness experience pressures that many of us will never understand—their work and personal lives are often open for the whole world to see and criticize. While people who have mental illnesses often suffer alone, celebrities might suffer alone in front of millions of watchful—and often hateful—eyes.

Former Ultimate Fighting Championship women’s bantamweight champion Ronda Rousey recently disclosed her experience of having suicidal thoughts after getting knocked out in her fight against Holly Holm in November 2015. The fight was highly publicized before it even began, as Rousey prematurely harassed Holm on Instagram a day before the fight and bragged about how she was going to “really enjoy the beating” that she would give Holm. After her defeat by knockout, Rousey was the topic of crude jokes and criticisms on social media as backlash for her cockiness before the fight and unfortunately embarrassing loss.

Rousey admitted she felt like she was “nothing” and that nobody—meaning the fans and press that support her career—would care about her after losing her undefeated record. She said she thought about killing herself immediately after realizing her loss and that having a life with her boyfriend was the only reason she felt she had a purpose.

It is slowly becoming more accepting for celebrities to speak out about their own mental illness for awareness and solidarity purposes. Beloved Star Wars actress Carrie Fisher openly speaks about her experience with bipolar disorder and drug addiction on social media and uses her influence to inspire those who need help. Ex-Disney star and musician Demi Lovato infamously endured drug addiction and an eating disorder in the public eye and now campaigns for self-love and body positivity for her fans.

The shocking suicide of comedian Robin Williams in August 2014 seemed like a turning point for public opinion of celebrities who “go down a bad path.” Celebrities who publicly suffer addiction or get arrested for drugs are often stigmatized for not being able to “handle” fame. When a beloved celebrity such as Williams—whose struggles were invisible to anyone who did not closely know him—is so impacted by mental illness, the harmful stigma against struggling celebrities begins to be questioned.

Williams’ struggle exemplifies how anyone can be affected by mental illness, yet celebrities are still put on a pedestal and criticized when personal weakness is perceived. When actors or musicians publicly announce a hiatus from their work, rumors circulate about money or personal problems. Celebrities are constantly bombarded with rumors, questions and libel as media are obsessed with celebrity drama and gossip. Never is it taken at face value that celebrities are human beings that may need to take a break to deal with stress and mental health—just as many of us do.

Outsiders, fans and the millions of people who do not know the celebrities personally always assign them made up personalities or characteristics. When we expect celebrities to be happy, engaging, talented and completely unproblematic, we forget they are real people who have real flaws and issues.

It is significant that Rousey shared her story so publicly—especially after facing a tough defeat. The more we understand mental illness and the less we hold celebrities to God-like standards, the more progress will be made in awareness, prevention and support of people who struggle within themselves.

Supreme Court vacancy needs to be addressed by Obama

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead on Saturday Feb. 13 at the age of 79. Justice Scalia served an astonishing 29 years in the highest court after his appointment by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. His death has caused chaos in the media, as the next Supreme Court Justice appointment will either lie in President Barack Obama’s hands or those of his successor.

Scalia was the longest sitting Supreme Court Justice among those currently serving. He was known for his strong conservative and originalist views. The principle of originalism is a form of judicial interpretation that allows an individual to make decisions based on the exact intent of those who drafted and ratified the Constitution. This theory resonates with conservatives due to its tendency to preserve long-lasting ideologies—unlike their Democratic counterparts, which have more progressive views relevant to modern society.

The Obama administration and presidential candidates recently began to argue over who would appoint the new Supreme Court Justice. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, for example, insisted that the next—still unknown—administration make the appointment, thus avoiding an Obama-appointed candidate and assuming the next president would be Republican.

The news of Scalia’s death occurred right before the Republican debate in South Carolina. To no one’s surprise, the candidates were asked their opinion on whether or not Obama should follow through with the appointment.

On ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” on Sunday Feb. 14, Sen. Ted Cruz said, “I don’t think the American people want a court that will strip our religious liberties.” The implication of “religious liberty” most likely refers to the Court’s ruling on same sex-marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Cruz is only worried about the next appointee because it could create a liberal majority in the Court with only four conservative justices.

Regardless of politicians’ biased views on the topic, leaving a vacant spot in the Court for nine months is unreasonable. Obama should unquestionably submit a nominee to the Senate. The Republican-majority Senate, however, is surely going to reject any nominees as liberal as Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The only way Sotomayor got the nomination in 2009 was due to the Democratic majority in the Senate. Therefore, in the upcoming months Obama would have to play a tricky game of Senatorial courtesy in order to squeeze in another nominee.

The appointment of a Supreme Court justice is more influential than most Americans realize. Through the appointment of a justice, a president can maintain his or her ideological beliefs in the political system for as long as the justice remains on the bench. In the case of Scalia, Reagan’s influence on the country lasted over 29 years.

Perhaps Obama’s optimal option for a nominee would be Sri Srinivasan, who sits in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Srinivasan was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals by a vote of 97-0 in 2013, making him a likeable candidate for the nomination. If nominated, Srinivasan would become the first Indian-American to hold the title of Supreme Court Justice. In numerous ways it would seem appropriate to appoint him, as it would continue the legacy of “firsts” in Scalia’s memory.

U.S. environmental policy crucial for sustainability

After the recent death of conservative United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, certain areas of the federal government are in disarray. Our liberal president has not only a right, but a duty to continue to govern in the resulting chaos—even if that means continuing to advance his Democratic agenda. One major cornerstone of the president’s legacy—the Clean Power Plan—is at stake.

The Supreme Court ordered a stay on the Clean Power Plan—Obama’s major environmental initiative—just four days before Scalia’s death. The plan provides regulations on carbon emissions from power plants, which is intended to accelerate the transition to renewable energy.

The plan was a major bargaining chip for the U.S. at the United Nations Climate Change Conference. It was the only evidence our nation could put forth of a serious commitment toward taking action to curb climate change. With the stay in place, the commitments to sustainability goals of nations around the world are thrown into question.

With no majority to rule on the plan in its current form, it would likely sit unimplemented. According to Linda Hirshman of The Washington Post, however, if Obama ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a slightly altered version of the rule, the process would start all over again. The circuit courts—which Obama has stacked with his appointees—would again refuse to issue a stay on the order. Without Scalia, there would be no Supreme Court majority to overrule them.

If such a path to implementation exists, Obama should take it, regardless of the calls to rise above partisan agendas in this time of flux. Nations around the world are looking to the U.S.—the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouses gases—for assurance of its commitment to reduce its impact on the planet. There is little hope of keeping the average temperature of the planet from rising two degrees Celsius by 2100—let alone the agreed-upon target of 1.5 degrees—if the U.S. does not cooperate with this international effort.

If there seems to be little chance of meeting the sustainability goals anyway, other nations may give up on their commitments toward these goals as pointless endeavors. Such a lack of leadership would not only be catastrophic to the planet, but would also represent a failure, as the U.S. could not live up to the position we so boastfully promise to the world. If the Clean Power Plan can affirm our commitment to the planet, then saving it will be well worth the accusations of opportunism.

Someone has to govern this country and going an entire year with a hobbled Supreme Court is not conducive to that. If the current situation is allowed to continue, there must be someone willing to step up and do the things that must be done in order to assure our continuing greatness. Future generations will have that person to thank.

Kanye’s publicity stunts overshadow his artistry

Musician Kanye West may be better known for his ego and Internet presence than his music at this point. In the midst of the release of his new album The Life of Pablo, West went on a days-long Twitter rant about a multitude of topics, including his personal multimillion-dollar debt, discrimination of people of color in the music industry and even a claim that comedian Bill Cosby is innocent of rape charges.

West has become a household name and every year it seems mainstream media changes their mind about him. The world hated West when he took the microphone from Taylor Swift at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, but then began to embrace his overconfident ego after his 2013 album Yeezus dropped.

Now, West is using the exact same tactics as presidential candidate Donald Trump is to get support: shock everyone and say ridiculous things to make headlines. Former Lamron editor-in-chief Maddy Smith ‘14 tweeted, “Kanyes PR team is now cackling together over salad in LA about the ingenuity of the monster theyve created.” She’s exactly right.

West—like Trump—knows exactly what he is doing when he tweets ridiculous things. Every single post is calculated in order to get more and more attention––and it’s working beautifully for him. It’s rare to see one of West’s tweets get fewer than 10,000 retweets, meaning more and more people see his absurdity every day. Trump—who may be more popular than West at this point—often gets fewer than 1,000 retweets, albeit with just 6 million followers compared to West’s 19 million.

There is a lesson to be learned from West’s foolishness, however: We as a society value shock over artistic skill and reason. Whether we’re supporting, criticizing or just laughing about West’s current persona, we’re still putting his music on the backburner and giving attention to his act. This is a dangerous trend and will lead to potentially devastating things if we cannot reverse it.

Taiwan earthquake exemplifies effect of hasty construction

A magnitude-6.4 earthquake struck Tainan, Taiwan on Saturday Feb. 6. CNN reported at least 40 deaths and hundreds of injuries and missing persons. Now, prosecutors are questioning if the casualties can be attributed to the faulty construction of the buildings that collapsed.

Because of the destruction, rescue teams had difficulty finding survivors in the rubble. According to The New York Times, Secretary General Chen Mei-Ling said, “We don’t want to use big drills to get down there because we might kill people.”

The drills, however, are crucial to get to underwater pipes that would make it easier to save the victims. The rescuers were put in a peculiar position when navigating these destroyed buildings because the city structure is constructed to withstand earthquakes. Therefore, the equipment necessary to carry out this operation is non-existent because—in theory—it would not be needed.

The majority of the deaths and injuries were attributed to the Weiguan Jinlong Tower—which collapsed—and seven surrounding buildings that were also damaged. When news reporters tried to locate the construction and engineering companies to blame, not surprisingly, they found that company had gone out of business. These corporations thrive upon quick construction work that easily generates a large amount of income with little to no governmental intervention.

This is the misfortune that developing nations go through with the goal of rapid expansion both economically and structurally. It is rare, however, that an advanced nation with a high human development rating like Taiwan would encounter such an issue.

While taking a look at Taiwan’s per capita gross domestic product—one of the primary indicators of the well-being of a country’s economy—it comes in at a strong $39,600 as of 2013. Economically, Taiwan’s civil engineering would not have been affected by a lack of economical support. Rather, it may be because of miscalculations and construction violations.

Taiwan has the resources and population necessary to build a stable society. Unfortunately, it is a misconception that advanced governments do not have the obligation to expand instead of remaining stagnant. This is just one of the numerous issues that nations encounter with their political and economic sphere.

Similar cases transpire all over developing countries. To one extreme, we could look back on the destruction of the 2010 earthquake in Haiti—where a magnitude-7.0 earthquake almost destroyed the entire capital of Port-au-Prince. The infrastructure of houses, government buildings and even hospitals was not able to handle earthquakes of such intensity. People were crushed, food became scarce and some were trapped for weeks in the ruins of their own homes.

That is the reality of rushed construction work. It may come at an affordable price at the beginning, but in the long run it could cost more than anticipated if it fails against natural disasters.

The Chinese Lunar New Year—one of the biggest holidays in Taiwan—started on Monday Feb. 8 with about 900,000 homes without power and 400,000 without water. In light of the earthquake disaster wrecking a cherished time for the country’s people, maybe the Taiwanese government will be motivated to hold construction companies responsible in the future.

Reporting assault, helping victims crucial to fighting rape culture

An alleged sexual assault occurred at Cornell University on Jan. 31, with Psi Epsilon president junior Wolfgang Ballinger arrested and charged with first-degree attempted rape, first-degree criminal sexual act and first-degree sex abuse. Thousands of campus rapes occur each year, yet only a fraction of them are reported—Ballinger’s victim is among the small minority who report their assault. According to court documents, the victim verbally told Ballinger that she was “not interested in him” and was “too intoxicated.”

She did the correct thing in reporting her assaulter, as it led to his arrest. This victim who came forward with these accusations is an example of someone who is actively fighting against rape culture. Every time a sexual assault goes unreported and a rapist gets away with the crime, there is the possibility that it will happen again to a different victim.

Being president of the highly-regarded Cornell fraternity, Ballinger’s name is plastered all over the news. Alongside Ballinger, however, are thousands of others who commit these crimes without receiving the high publicity or the legal consequences.

Ballinger represents the tip of the iceberg when it comes to sexual assaults in college—and the tip of the tip of the iceberg when it comes to sexual assaults that are reported. According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, fewer than half of all female sexual assault victims in college actually report the incident to officials.

A study by the United States Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that the leading reason for unreported sexual assaults is because the victims do not think the crime was serious enough and do not want action to be taken against their offender. With nine out of 10 victims previously knowing their offender, it is not surprising that many feel this way.

The second most popular response was that the victims felt like they would be partially blamed if they reported their offender. Some even said that they were worried about the repercussions of filing a report. Victim blaming plays a large role in rape culture. Drinking too much is not the fault of the victim, nor an excuse for the offender. Rather than placing the blame on the victim, we need to recognize that rape is something that is intentional—we need to hold offenders completely accountable.

In addition to Cornell, the University of Virginia made news last year amidst reports of a fraternity-related gang rape. Additionally, an Indiana University fraternity was suspended after a video depicting a member performing a sexually explicit act on a woman was leaked. News headlines regarding college rapes and sexual assaults have grown monotonous and almost expected at this point. Fraternity rapes are so common that eyebrows aren’t even raised when yet another story hits the news.

According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, one in five women are sexually assaulted in college. This is a statistic that is heard over and over again. One of the biggest issues in dealing with this statistic is the underreporting of rape. When a rape goes unreported, it gives the rapist the ability to continue to do whatever they want to future victims.

Changing the mindset of our society from blaming the victim to holding the offender completely accountable is crucial in encouraging more women to speak out against

Renewable energy deserves attention amid low gas prices

Oil prices haven’t been this low since the 1990s. According to The New York Times, as of Tuesday Feb. 9, you can buy a barrel of crude for less than $27—a decrease of more than 70 percent since June 2014. That may seem like a good thing at the pump, but there are a whole host of reasons why that’s actually bad. One reason is the danger this lower price represents to fossil fuel competitors.

Renewable forms of energy cannot compete with fossil fuels with the price of oil being so low. The price of solar and wind energy has dropped tremendously as investments lead to technological advancement, but many of these investments were made with the high price of fossil fuels—rather than the environmental benefits of renewables—in mind. To incentivize investment and ensure fair competition, governments should take advantage of the opportunity and cut their subsidies to fossil fuel companies, which—according to Oil Change International—add up to $1 trillion per year worldwide.

OCI statistics go on to report that fossil fuels have received four times as many subsidies as renewable energy sources. Much of the money goes toward consumption subsidies, which make things like gas and heating oil affordable. These should be cut responsibly at a pace that allows renewable infrastructure to catch up while also sending signals to the market that unsustainable forms of energy cannot expect much help from governments in the future. Developed countries should do this more quickly than developing countries, especially while the price of oil is so far below what most consumers are used to.

Production subsidies are of more immediate interest; they essentially give oil, gas and coal companies government welfare. These make up the majority of subsidies in industrialized countries like the United States and they should be the first to go.

According to OCI, subsidies for fossil fuels amount to around $37.5 billion annually in the U.S. government and the fossil fuels industry spends approximately $329 million a year on lobbying and campaign contributions, which makes their return on investment for these activities roughly 10,000 percent.

There will be costs to removing these subsidies. The New York Times reported that 250,000 jobs have already been lost due to the drop in oil prices and oil-producing nations like Norway and the OPEC countries are seeing losses to their economies. Cutting demand further by raising the price of oil would increase these pressures, but these losses are worth it in the long run. The Economist Intelligence Unit estimated that the present value at risk from climate change is approximately $13.8 trillion and—from the perspective of governments—$43 trillion if temperatures rise by 6 degrees Celsius. This would represent 30 percent of the world’s entire stock of manageable assets.

In the wake of the international accords of The United Nations Climate Change Conference, any government that supports the fossil fuel industry is hypocritically undermining its express intentions to keep global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The use of public funds to support the fossil fuel industry is a disgrace that cuts directly against the interests of the constituents of all governments while producing profits for the wealthy companies that lobby them. Bills such as Sen. Bernie Sanders’ End Polluter Welfare Act should be supported and politicians who refuse to discuss President Barack Obama’s proposed $4 billion reduction of these subsidies should be held accountable.

If we are to mitigate the effects of climate change, renewables must be given a chance to replace fossil fuels. The recent drop in oil prices gives governments an opportunity to do that right now.