Students counter millennial stereotypes through work ethic

You would be hard-pressed to find a college student who hasn’t received a parental lecture about how their parents used to walk 10 miles to school every morning, listened to a professor explain that they didn’t have the technology we have as undergrads or heard a grandparent explain how they had a job when they were only seven years old.

Writing for The New York Times, Steven Rattner suggests that millennials—those born between the years of 1980 and 2000—can be perceived as “narcissistic, lazy, and self-centered.” Insults like these have consistently plagued the accomplishments of our generation. Criticism from those older than us has diminished our life choices and priorities; sometimes even making us believe their words ourselves. In fact, it sometimes feels as if our success is not encouraged, but rather, our failure is expected.

There are people in our generation who unfortunately fit these stereotypes; we cannot deny the allegations that our privileged lives have affected some of our worldviews. Teacher and author Erin Gruwell stated in The Freedom Writers Diary, “Don’t let the actions of a few determine the way you feel about an entire group.” Defining an entire generation based on a half-truth cannot be accepted any longer.

Regardless of the unfairness of these generalizations, they do not seem to hinder our generation. Although I cannot speak to the entire population of millennials, after my time spent at Geneseo, I am confident in our generation. If the work ethic, passion and generosity of the students here is even a fraction of what our generation is capable of, our world’s future is a bright one.

Anyone present in the Ira S. Wilson Ice Arena on Saturday April 9 wouldn’t dare call our generation lazy or self-centered. At the Relay for Life Event from 6 p.m.–6 a.m., students and community members joined together in the fight against cancer. The student-run event was attended by 2,000 and raised over $173,000. If the incredible atmosphere in the arena wasn’t enough to convince you of the power of our generation, these statistics certainly speak for themselves.

Stereotypes regarding our generation affect us each and every day. Needless to say, Geneseo defies each and every preconceived notion of how “little” people think we are capable of. Even though we have opportunities and technology that was unavailable to other generations, we try our best not to take these privileges for granted. Instead, we use them to tear down generational stereotypes—one action at a time.

I can see it happening across the world and right here in our Geneseo community. I see this action as Geneseo fraternities and sororities join together in philanthropy and resident assistants help students in their college assimilation. I see it as Geneseo athletes train tirelessly to bring home SUNYAC Championships and as students travel halfway across the world to experience other cultures.

I hear it in the ferocious typing of students during the early morning hours at Milne Library and in the voices of a cappella groups and in the instruments of music ensembles. And I most certainly heard it in the moment of silence at the memorial service for Matthew Hutchinson and Kelsey Annese.

As millennials, facing the weight of negative stereotypes is a burden we continue to carry. We must persist in proving everyone wrong and by breaking out of the confinements those stereotypes have created. As I see it, the future is not hidden within the opinions of generations of the past—rather, it is within us.

Sanders campaign exercises admirable, effective tactics

We’ve heard the constant refrain in the media: Sen. Bernie Sanders is not a serious candidate; he’s running to bring attention to the issues on his political agenda rather than to actually win the nomination—and if he isn’t, then he should be. But even if that narrative were entirely true, it does a disservice to voters by undermining the seriousness of the choice they have whenever they are faced with a ballot.

One of the main “unserious” things that Sanders did throughout his campaigning in 2015 was his refusal to engage in character assault against his opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In the October Democratic debate, his rousing call to “forget about [her] damn emails” drew sharp contrast between the civility of the Democratic race and the raucous mess that was—and is—the Republican race. The incident also confirmed for many what a decent man Sanders is and drew another contrast: his determined transparency and dedication to talking only about the issues with Clinton’s dodging questions on her own record while attacking him over his voting record on guns.

By January, it had become clear that Sanders' movement was here to stay and this dynamic changed when the ruling came down that Goldman Sachs would escape severe penalties for its role in the financial crisis. In their January debate, Sanders smashed Clinton for accepting $675,000 in exchange for giving three speeches to Goldman Sachs executives.

Sanders’ rallies—which were once light-hearted happenings of prosaic policy discussions—became filled with brutal sarcasm: “I figure if she gets $250,000 for a speech, it must be a brilliant, earth-shattering speech. It must be a speech written in Shakespearean prose.”

It is in this environment that Sanders drew criticism for using the word “unqualified” when discussing Clinton. The word set the media on fire for days; a response clearly unwarranted for Sanders’ simple point that the job requirements for president are unconventional and that good judgment is a qualification for high office. But it was the moment the Clinton campaign had been waiting for: Sanders was no longer the morally unimpeachable good boy of the campaign, he had become something else—he had become a politician.

The truth is that Sanders was elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont in 1981 and has been a politician for almost as long as he was an activist. But he is a qualitatively different kind of politician. In stooping to targeting his opponent, Sanders is trying to do right by the millions of people who have voted for him and donated to his campaign by doing everything he can to win. The same can be said of Clinton, but the difference lies in their approaches.

The Clinton campaign’s express purpose is to, in Clinton’s words, “disqualify, defeat, and worry about uniting the party later”—a strategy they have implemented with characteristic calculation and subtlety. While they spent months making damaging insinuations, Sanders was stumping about the issues he has been championing his entire career: affordable healthcare, family leave, climate change and income inequality among others. The results: heading into the New York Primary, Sanders has won 1,087 delegates and Clinton has won 1,307.

When voters are evaluating these candidates’ comments—and when Democrats are making decisions in the voting booth on Tuesday April 19—they should remember how remarkable Sanders’ record against Clinton is in the grand scheme of things. He has not remained the docile angel opponent of 2015, but the strength of character those first seven months displayed remains beneath his furious attempts to seize the chance to make a difference.

The fact that character assault was ever off the table in his campaign shows how wonderfully and painfully averse he is to the methods and machinations of establishment politics. It was never the wrong thing to do.

Geneseo fails as true liberal arts college

As an institution, Geneseo holds itself to a series of standards considered liberal arts. Its mission statement describes Geneseo as a public liberal arts college that combines a “rigorous curriculum, transformational learning experiences, and a rich co-curricular life to create a learning-centered environment.” In recent years, however, Geneseo has strayed from these values to disproportionately emphasize science, technology, engineering and mathematics—ultimately discouraging students from engaging in a variety of disciplines.

According to the Association of American Colleges and Universities, a “liberal education” must provide students with broad knowledge, helping them “develop a sense of social responsibility … strong and transferable intellectual and practical skills such as communication, analytical and problem-solving skills and a demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and skills in real-world settings.” Although the general education and Geneseo breadth requirements—which include both natural and social sciences, arts and humanities—establish the university as technically liberal arts, recent actions have indicated otherwise.

Geneseo’s speech-language pathology department closed in May 2014 due to budget cuts from a decrease in state funding. The computer science and studio art departments also closed, but a recent approval of $249,000 in funds will allow a revival of faculty with experience in integrative computational analysis. Assistant Director and Manager for Systems and Networking and Research Technologist Kirk Anne told The Lamron that focusing funds on this program would offset the loss of that computer science major.

No recent funding has supported any restoration of speech-language pathology or studio art, however. The creation of a Critical Language Consortium, funded by a grant from the State University of New York Investment and Performance Fund, looks promising, but the program—which was a collaboration between Geneseo, SUNY Brockport and Monroe Community College—was piloted this semester by Brockport and MCC, not Geneseo.

Geneseo’s increasing distance from the arts and humanities is evident not only by the allocation of funds, but also the general disparity of building space and quality across campus. The Integrative Science Center—an addition to what was once Greene Hall—provides students and faculty with extensive classroom and laboratory space. Bailey Hall—which finished renovations in 2014—also offers brand new facilities to departments in the social sciences—such as sociology and geography.

I am not saying these buildings are unnecessary or excessive—they allow for meaningful growth within those departments—but the difference in quality between these facilities and those of political science, for example, are astounding.

The political science and international relations departments congregate in the basement of Welles Hall—a former elementary school—or the single hallway of Fraser; two entirely different buildings with little more than a doorway connecting them. Classes in English, communication, foreign language and humanities are also held in these buildings.

“It’s like a hand-me down,” international relations and sociology major junior Sana Ansari said. “Welles is the worst. It’s pathetic because we’re paying for this, but my high school was nicer. It makes it harder to learn.”

Ansari questioned the funding behind the new College Stadium when the conditions of a student’s learning environment appear so neglected.

With Geneseo Recognizing Excellence, Achievement & Talent Day approaching, it is crucial to understand the importance behind an emphasis on and appreciation for all fields of study, not just those in STEM.

Geneseo administration and faculty must actively fund and support the arts and humanities or the university’s mission statement will become illegitimate.

Unqualified politicians do not have expertise on climate change

Many climate change-denying politicians have one thing in common: they are not scientists. These politicians—especially those in the Republican Party—often misuse scientific evidence or disregard expert opinion altogether when offering their stance on global warming.

Sen. Ted Cruz made many incorrect statements regarding climate change while in New Hampshire in January and Donald Trump has stated he is “not a believer” in global warming and believes the world faces bigger issues. Now, it’s former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin who will give her “expert” opinion on the denial of climate change in an upcoming panel discussion.

Palin will participate in a discussion on Thursday April 14 following a screening of the climate change-denying documentary Climate Hustle in Washington, D.C. The documentary aims to debunk global warming, and Palin said, "We've been told by fearmongers that global warming is due to man's activities and this [documentary] presents strong arguments against that in a very relatable way."

We understand that politicians may deny climate change because they often have financial stakes in major corporations that cause environmental harm. But why do we insist on using these influential people as sources for this conversation when they lack credible science knowledge and experience?

The phrase, “I'm not a scientist, but ... ” in regards to climate change conversations has nearly become an ongoing joke. It seems that anyone who asserts their support or opposition to the debate can be considered an expert on the subject regardless of their lack of professional knowledge. Palin said in a video posted on her abandoned YouTube channel that no one has proven that these changes are manmade or that it is the result of greenhouse gases, which directly contradicts scientific research.

Climate change is a big issue politicians need to address immediately—whether they want to reconcile it or deny that it even exists. But politicians should not be consulted on the issue as if they have real experience and knowledge in researching the subject; that's what the scientists are for. And since the consensus among real scientists is that climate change and global warming exist and are manmade, it's tiring that so many influential people are working too hard to argue against it.

On racial profiling in Geneseo:

I am an African-American woman who attends Geneseo. I love the campus for what it is, but I hate the way some village locals stereotype others. From past experiences, I am well aware of the stereotypes used against minorities in Geneseo. Although severely blatant racism does not happen as often, I feel incredibly compelled to share this story. For the sake of the people involved in this incident, we’ve chosen to remain unnamed.

My friends and I decided to go to Geneseo Square Theaters on March 27 around 9:15 p.m. We arrived in a group of about nine people, with my Indian-American male friend holding a purse for a female friend. Upon entering the theater, the white male manager stopped my friend—apparently in some sort of emergency—and said, “You can’t bring bags into the movie theater.”

My friend responded that the purse belonged to one of the women in our group. Following his response, I asked the manager, “Since when aren’t women allowed to bring purses into the theater?”

To our disbelief, the employee replied, “Since they started bombing theaters.”

To avoid further confrontation, my friend opened her purse for the manager of the theater, assuring him that she only had books and a football in her purse. Without asking, the manager removed the football out of her hands and shook the ball—as if checking for explosives. Ignoring his unnecessary rudeness, we proceeded to buy our tickets.

My Sikh friend was the first to purchase his ticket. As the manager rang him up, he noticed my friend was holding an opened iced tea and asked to smell the bottle. Instead of waiting for his consent, the manager tried to remove the bottle from his hand. Throughout the entire incident, I was right next to him holding an open beverage and not once did the manager ask to smell my bottle. Maintaining my composure and hiding my discomfort, I purchased my ticket.

My Asian female friend purchased her ticket next. She handed the manager her debit card before she remembered that there is a student discount for Geneseo students. She tried to show her Geneseo student ID card for the discount, but the manager refused, claiming she could not have the discount after already paying.

After being treated so nastily by the manager, I finally asked for a refund—letting him know that I will no longer be patronizing his theater. He counted out $9 and threw it on the counter rather than handing the money to me. He proceeded to do the same to all of my friends who asked for their money back.

We left, but returned shortly after and asked to speak to a manager. He told us that there was no one higher than he, and if we didn’t want him to search our bags, we could have left. We exchanged some words, resulting in a small argument.

I do not know if there are any laws that allow staff members of a movie theater to search a customer’s bag. It was the manager—not a security guard, which may have been more understandable—who left the ticket booth to block us from entering because he saw a big group of non-white students in his theater.

The manager did not specify that he needed to search my friend’s bag for safety reasons or for food that isn’t allowed in the theater. His only response was that, “They have started bombing movie theaters,” and because my Indian friend was holding the bag, the manager automatically associated his appearance with “bombs.”

What happened that night was not our first encounter with discrimination in Geneseo. We know this town isn’t diverse, but that does not give anyone the right to suggest that an Indian college student could be a terrorist or that a big group of minorities means trouble. This night was a clear and evident instance of racial-profiling that should never happen again.

Geneseo Theater manager Jason Yantz responded to the allegations:

Our standard policy at the theater is to search any bags or suspicious items due to the mass shootings that occurred in movie theaters over the last few years.  This is done to protect the safety of all the customers attending a movie at the theater at any time.  Searching bags or purses has absolutely nothing to do with the persons race or ethnicity.   I'm guessing he found it peculiar that a male was carrying a women's purse and that's why he asked to inspect it.  I must say that I don't ever see customers bring in footballs so that would be an out of the ordinary item for us to see there.  The theater is in fact a private establishment and we do have the right to search suspicious items.  I personally offer customers the option of leaving bags or purses in their cars if they don't feel comfortable with me searching the item. He should have offered that option to them as well. 

My assistant manager who has been working at the theater for over 15 years was just following standard safety procedures.  Please note that the gentlemen they are referring to is retired from the United States armed forces after 25 years of service.  

We do not allow outside food or drink in the theater based on the fact that part of our business is we sell items there.  This is clearly posted on the entrance door. I cannot tell you why he chose to question one students drink and not another because I wasn't there to witness this event. 

As far as his rudeness I will address the issue right away with him.  We pride ourselves in customer service and I'm not sure his reasoning for treating this group of college students so poorly.  I agree that he should have treated the group of college students with more respect due to their displeasure.  

We are a small locally owned company and I don't think the proper way to lodge a complaint is to publish something in a newspaper to attempt to tarnish our image.  I really wish these students would have attempted to contact me the owner first so I could personally apologize to them and remedy the situation. 

Minorities disproportionately affected by environmental issues

The editorial in the Thursday March 31 issue of The Lamron titled “Flint crisis not environmental racism” argued that the water crisis that has poisoned the constituents of Flint, Michigan had no roots in racism. The writer’s basis for this claim is that the poisoned water did not spare the white population of Flint and that the black government leaders played a role in the crisis. According to the editorial, the true issue lies in the fact that an unelected emergency manager had the authority to ignore a city council vote.

The term environmental racism was coined in the 1980s, referring to the disproportionate exposure of black individuals to polluted air, water and soil. This is a result of poverty, segregation and the environmental policies that have relegated many racial minorities to some of the most industrialized and toxic environments in America.

It is true that the water crisis in Flint did not spare the white population—just as it is true that that members of the white population are not spared incarceration in the prison system. According to 2014 statistics from the United States Department of Justice, whites make up 33.6 percent of the United States incarcerated population, while blacks and Hispanics make up 35.8 percent and 21.6 percent respectively.

The key word here is disproportionate. Minorities are disproportionately incarcerated, just as they are disproportionately affected by environmental and water crises. This is why black people in Louisiana’s “cancer alley” are disproportionately diseased and why a black child is over 500 percent more likely to die from asthma than a white child.

Hearings about discriminatory real estate policies declared Flint to be 94 percent segregated in November 1966. Flint has historically been affected by racist policies, which have continued—whether intentionally or unintentionally—to this day through implicit bias against minority-majority cities.

The emergency manager during the time of the Flint water crisis, Darnell Early, was appointed by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder and is a black man. The government failed at the federal, state and local level, but arguing that racism did not play a role in its failure because a few decision makers involved were black is a similar argument to claiming racism no longer exists in America because we have a black president.

Snyder prioritized frugality over municipal well-being and appointed the emergency managers, and the Departments of Environmental Quality and Health and Human Services also failed in their dismissal of various warnings. We should ask ourselves if warnings of poisoned water would have been dismissed if Flint were a majority white, middle-class city.

Flint citizens have been disenfranchised in terms of governing their city since 2011. The Emergency Manager Law allows Snyder to appoint an unelected official to control a majority black city that is in the midst of numerous crises. According to The Root, approximately 50 percent of the black population in Michigan has been deprived of having a democratically-elected official control their city within the past decade—compared to 2 percent of the white population.

Majority-white cities with similar fiscal problems as Flint have not been taken over by emergency managers. Environmental decisions directly relate to political power and laws that strip Americans of their civil rights disproportionately affect the black population in Michigan—including those in Flint.

People of color—especially those in low-income communities—continue to disproportionately encounter toxic water, environmental hazards and polluted neighborhoods with incinerators, coal plants and landfills that are quietly and slowly killing them. If we fail to address the racism and bias underlying these issues, we will be turning a colorblind eye to the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Women’s soccer team deserves equal pay for accomplishments

The United States Women’s National Soccer Team has had an immeasurable amount of success in the past few years. They took home gold in the 2012 Summer Olympics and won the 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup, showcasing their athletic prowess worldwide. Their greatest success, however, may be off the field: serving as positive role models for young girls and women everywhere.

CNN reported that USWNT members filed a lawsuit demanding equal pay from the U.S. Soccer Federation on Friday April 1. This action is an important step in battling sexism in the male-dominated arena of professional sports. Young girls and women are able to watch the team as they battle opponents on the field and now as they battle workplace discrimination in the real world. This teaches them that they, too, deserve equal compensation for their achievements.

Co-captains midfielder Carli Lloyd and defender Becky Sauerbrunn, forward Alex Morgan, midfielder Megan Rapinoe and keeper Hope Solo and are suing for equal pay rights. CNN explained that the group insisted their complaint was on behalf of their entire team. They felt the need to take action because they earn “as little as between half and a quarter of their male counterparts.”

National Public Radio reported that the athletes will be represented by Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney who is no stranger to working with controversial sports cases—most notably representing New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady in the infamous “Deflategate” scandal. Kessler expressed his support for the women’s claim, noting that, “We believe we have a very strong case of blatant gender discrimination and that the [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] will agree.”

The Huffington Post reported figures to help paint a clearer picture of the gender discrimination that Kessler references. According to the article “Why Soccer Should Pay Women’s Players Equally, Regardless of Revenue,” in addition to individual salaries being unequal, the USWNT was paid $2 million for winning the 2015 Women’s World Cup while Germany—the winning men’s team in 2014—earned $35 million. This difference is grossly unfair and unacceptable.

The decision by the USWNT to refuse to settle for less than they deserve is an important one. As Huffington Post explains, these athletes “have proven there is an appetite for women’s soccer and that it’s certainly capable of generating global popularity.” There is no reason for this blatant inequality in payment.

These women have faced the inherently sexist nature of professional sports throughout their entire careers. Now, they are publicly opposing the sexist nature of their payment. The USWNT team is more than deserving of equal—if not more—compensation than the men’s team because of the success they have achieved.

Hopefully, this public outcry for equal pay will inspire and invoke change. Not only are members of the USWNT role models for their athletic success, but also because of their desire to fight for gender equality and women’s rights. Their actions demonstrate to young girls and women everywhere that knowing what you deserve—and asking for it—is OK. In fact, it is necessary.

Clinton criticisms often rooted in sexism, lack merit

With New York’s primary election date steadily approaching, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to ignore a growing trend among supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders. As someone in full support of Sanders, I am entirely sympathetic to—and often contribute to—legitimate criticisms of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

There is a huge difference, however, between valid criticisms of Clinton’s policies and decisions and the blatant misogyny that has flooded my Twitter and Facebook feeds. Too much focus has been put on irrelevant, gender-based criticisms of Clinton from both supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Sanders.

Unsurprisingly, the Internet has proved to be an excellent platform for relatively uneducated and politically unaware people to voice their every thought regarding Clinton. As a young woman, I know for certain I am growing tired of older generations of women scolding me for not supporting the prospect of a female president—ultimately questioning my feminist ethics. While the majority of Sanders supporters are feminist in their principles, it is undeniable that Clinton is the target of misogynistic rhetoric from Republicans and Democrats alike. The recent hashtag “#BernieBros” is enough to make my head spin. 

An example of this blatant misogyny can be found in an MSNBC segment that meticulously discussed Clinton’s public speaking techniques in March. After Clinton gave a speech in Detroit regarding job creation and gender equality, three male reporters on MSNBC’s “Hardball” took it upon themselves to criticize Clinton for shouting during speeches.

One of them stated: “There’s a private version of Hillary Clinton that’s very winning and very charming, that’s because there’s no microphone.” Because, as we know, a presidential candidate’s most valuable asset is their charm.

Clinton herself has spoken out about the constant criticism of her “shrillness,” stating, “I've been told to stop, and I quote, ‘Shouting about gun violence.’ Well, first of all, I'm not shouting, it's just, when women talk, some people think we're shouting.” This is a classic example of a passionate woman being labeled as overly emotional and abrasive.

These criticisms of Clinton are just more examples of women being told to quiet down and be politer. Sanders himself had to condemn the growing misogynistic attacks on Clinton from his own supporters, stating, “We have many hundreds of thousands of supporters, and some of them have gone over the edge. I apologize for that.”

Clinton has consistently shown dishonesty and troubling associations with issues many college students take seriously, such as welfare reform, militaristic ventures and her ties with corporate powers. I support Sanders because his values coincide with my own, primarily with his stances on abortion, college tuition and minimum wage.

Trump and Sanders supporters alike are guilty of criticizing Clinton for irrelevant issues that are tied to her gender. Mocking Clinton for “barking like a dog”—as Trump has—is not a legitimate criticism. Sanders is known for hollering and wildly gesturing from behind a podium without once being called shrill. We need to stop associating assertiveness and power with “bitchiness” when it comes to women.

Regardless of who you'll be voting for in the primaries, take it upon yourself to end the misogyny that is increasingly apparent in this election.

Anxiety medication does not erase personality

As managing editor of The Lamron, I come across a variety of differing perspectives while editing articles for publication—opinions that I may not agree with. This occurred most recently—and most profoundly—for me with the article “Equating mental and physical illness pressures medication use” in the Thursday March 31 issue. I cannot emphasize enough how troubling and disheartening it was to read a piece that centers on ignorant disparagement of the use of psychiatric medication to treat anxiety.

As an individual who benefits immensely from taking anti-anxiety and depression medication—and who knows a myriad of wonderful, unique individuals who do the same—let me first address the writer’s claim that the use of psychiatric drugs to treat anxiety may “result in the partial or even total erasure of one’s personality.”

This is an antiquated, dangerous misconception surrounding psychiatric medication to help treat mental illness: that it will turn you into some kind of dependent zombie devoid of any uniqueness or personality. The imposition of this ignorant belief perpetuates stigma that may very well turn struggling individuals away from trying this form of treatment for fear of the best parts of who they are suddenly being destroyed. The only thing that psychiatric medication truly changes is brain chemistry, not a person’s character.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness explains that psychiatric medication works by “influencing the brain chemicals regulating emotions and thought patterns” and that anti-anxiety medications specifically “work solely to reduce the emotional and physical symptoms of anxiety.”

While anti-anxiety medication doesn’t completely eviscerate all symptoms of mental illness, it can help to assuage and limit the physical signs of anxiety attacks along with helping the individual achieve a greater state of mental and emotional stability. For me, my medication helps me feel significantly more in control of my anxiety and more adept at handling my day-to-day activities and stressors. I’m still myself on my medication, just a more capable, rational and generally happier version.

Plenty of other individuals have cited the usage of psychiatric medication as beneficial as well, something poignantly demonstrated in a Oct. 1, 2015 Think Progress article entitled “How one Woman is Fighting the Stigma of Mental Health Meds.” Blogger Erin Jones made an incredibly well-received Facebook post—spurring the “#MedicatedandMighty” movement promoting open support and display of personal psychiatric medications—that showed her prescriptions for anxiety and antidepressant medications.

Jones wrote, “I have tried living this life without prescription help. It seems to have me on top of the world one minute and rocking in the corner the next ... Anxiety and antidepressant medication to the rescue. Sometimes, folks, we just need help.” Jones’ post reasserts the crucial idea that there is no shame in taking medication for mental illness and it helps to educate others on the real purpose of psychiatric medication.   

The editorial in question asserts that addressing mental illnesses such as anxiety disorders shouldn’t be treated with a “one-size-fits-all approach”—which is a statement I firmly support—but this claim is contradicted later in the article by condemning the use of psychiatric medication as a viable means of dealing with one’s anxiety. If handling anxiety can—and should—be looked at as something that is differently handled according to personal choice and circumstance, then a piece attacking pro-medicine approaches while implying that non-medication methods are superior is incredibly hypocritical.

If a person wants to use medication to treat their anxiety, that’s totally fine. If a person doesn’t want to use medication, that’s fine too. But what isn’t fine is the blind condemnation of psychiatric medication as a means to combat mental illness. You can’t ignore the fact that so many individuals have—and can—publicly attest to the way anti-anxiety medication helps them live more fulfilling, stable and happier lives.

Panama Papers a win for investigative journalism

As young journalists ourselves, we know how important it is to bring honest news and information to the Geneseo campus. Journalism is a valued part of a society—especially when done morally and with integrity—and nothing exemplifies this value more than the achievements of investigative journalism. Investigative journalists uncover both positive and negative truths that everyday people otherwise may not know about. And it is the work of hundreds of dedicated investigative journalists that has brought about one of the most significant and controversial information leaks in recent time.

The Panama Papers are 11.5 million leaked files from the world’s fourth biggest offshore law firm: Mossack Fonseca. The leak is monumental because of its connection to rich and powerful world figures and leaders—and their connection to a possible system of corruption.

Some of the top wealthiest figures in the world were able to establish offshore bank accounts with Mossack Fonseca. Offshore bank accounts can be used legally to anonymously secure money, but they can also be used for tax evasion and money laundering. The firm in question has been investigated on suspicion of money laundering in the past, but only after a careful review of the millions of files will we be able to discover if—and to what degree—corruption exists in the world of the wealthy.

According to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the leak is significant because of the high-profile people and corporations involved. Thirty-three companies blacklisted by the United States government and alleged nuclear weapon financiers and arms traders for the Middle East, North Korea and Syria were listed in the files. Several world leaders connected to Russian president Vladmir Putin were involved as well.

The investigative work does not end with the leaking of information; journalists will continue to sort through the data to uncover the truth about Mossack Fonseca's offshore practices and the legal status of all involved. Not only could this be a breakthrough in uncovering the corruption of the wealthy that has existed throughout history, but it is also a breakthrough in investigative journalism.

In a society riddled with biased and corrupt media outlets, it is refreshing to see investigative journalism successfully act out its intended purpose: to inform the public of what goes on behind closed doors.

Flint crisis not environmental racism

In the midst of congressional hearings on the Flint, Michigan water crisis, I am reminded of the harsh accusations from presidential candidates former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders—both of whom shamelessly and carelessly inferred that racism was a factor in the Flint catastrophe. Geneseo’s student body recently unabashedly hopped aboard the racism bandwagon by constructing displays in the MacVittie College Union and hosting a forum on environmental racism. This consequently diverted attention away from more likely causes of the crisis.

Environmental racism cannot be blamed in a situation where members of all races are affected equally by a tragedy. The reality is that the tainted water did not spare the white population of Flint—which constitutes a sizable 37 percent of the population. City leaders did not specifically target the homes of black people or other minorities as places to send the water. To say that the entire situation is the product of racism because minorities were affected is utterly juvenile, simplistic and a blatant fallacy.

Ignorant campus demonstrations completely disregarded the role diversity played in the cause of the crisis. Former Flint emergency manager Darnell Earley—a black man—played a key role in cutting off Flint’s access to safe water. He authored a letter to the city of Detroit in 2014 ending the deal that provided the residents of Flint with safe water. 

Similarly, former Flint Director of Public Works Howard Croft was a prominent public supporter of using water from the Flint River. One of his duties as Director of Public Works was to ensure that residents had clean and safe water to drink. Croft is also a black man who resigned from his position because of the crisis. The point is that no single race of people can be blamed for this tragedy when some of the people most directly responsible were minorities themselves and the victims were of multiple races.

Given these facts, the accusations of racism from Geneseo and beyond are a tragedy of their own—and perplexing at best. The formation of misguided panels on racism and displays in the MacVittie College Union only served to distract from making any true progress toward addressing the issue. For example, an emergency manager in Flint had the authority to ignore a City Council vote to return to Detroit’s water in March 2015, but no one held panels about solving that immense imbalance of government power. Instead, the student body found it more productive to fixate on skin color.

Liberal professors and students alike have promoted the notion that the Flint water crisis is somehow more or less tragic based on the color of the skin of the people who were predominantly affected. In reality, a diverse government experienced a severe lapse in good judgment and a diverse population suffered as a result. 

Unfortunately, Geneseo’s campus reflects a national obsession with looking at problems through a racially polarized lens instead of rationally breaking down the facts to find the truth.  Ultimately, racism will flourish as long as blame is recklessly assigned on a basis of skin color and not behavior.

Women on U.S. currency long overdue, deserved

Sexism in the 21st century has become a complicated concept, as many people feel equality between men and women has already been reached. This can be disputed, however, by viewing just one basic aspect of our everyday lives: money. Not only is sexism present in the controversy regarding equal pay for equal work, but also on the physical currency.

Whenever a person is paying for something, they can expect to look down and see a man’s face staring back up at them. Not one woman is pictured on a regularly used bill or coin. This clear discrimination was perhaps acceptable in 1928—when the United States Treasury selected the paper currency—but cannot be ignored in 2016.

The “Women on 20s” campaign addresses the fact that a woman’s face is missing from U.S. currency. The campaign believes that this issue within the U.S. coinage is an important feminist issue—their slogan being, “Women’s place is on the money.” Women on 20s describes itself on its website as “a non-profit, grassroots organization which aims to compel historic change by convincing President [Barrack] Obama that now is the time to put a woman’s face on our paper currency.”

The campaign argues that the U.S. currency is outdated as a whole, but especially the $20 bill. It argues that “money sends a message both at home and abroad about what and whom we value as a nation.” The site continues, “Keeping an Andrew Jackson bill in wide circulation means we celebrate and evaluate historic figures who used and condoned violence against personal enemies and populations of marginalized people.”

With this harsh criticism of the $20 bill comes the fact that women are largely unrepresented in society as a whole—all the while celebrating problematic men. The campaign argues that this type of discrimination in our currency “conveys the message that women are not important enough or independent enough to have a bill of their own.” The efforts of this movement to change this patriarchal nature are much needed.

The New York Times explains that many other countries have beaten the U.S. to having women on their paper money, including countries in South America, Europe and the Middle East. As a progressive country, the U.S. should be among these countries—the U.S. should be the one setting a standard for basic gender equality.

The efforts of the Women on 20s campaign has not gone completely unnoticed. Buzzfeed reported in June 2015 that the U.S. Treasury officials planned to redesign the $10 bill. The Treasury Department said that the $10 bill “should feature a woman who was a champion for our inclusive democracy.” Exactly who this woman is will be released later on in the year and the bill will be in circulation in 2020. This will literally change the face of U.S. currency forever.

Overall, the efforts of the Women on 20s campaign—along with the lobbying efforts of many—have contributed to this colossal first step. Even though the campaign was unable to get a woman on the $20 bill, the declaration by the U.S. Treasury Department will allow for further equality.

By 2020, a worthy woman will be depicted on U.S. currency in time for the 100th anniversary of the passing of the 19th Amendment. This achievement is just a small step in conquering everyday sexist micro-aggressions ingrained in our country’s history.

Equating mental and physical illness pressures medication use

Take it from someone who knows: being an all-around anxious person is difficult. Anxiety is exceedingly common among college students and can throw seemingly insurmountable obstacles in the path of success and goal-directed action. Unfortunately, the increasingly dominant one-size-fits-all approach to addressing anxiety on college campuses and beyond is simultaneously close-minded and destructive.

To allow for empathetic and honest dealing with the potentially devastating consequences of anxiety and related problems, defenders of mental health often assert that physical illnesses and mental illnesses are not really different. Both can affect every major body system and can range from mild to fatal. While it is positive that stigma is being called out and mental health is now openly addressed in the media and in our daily lives, simplistic solutions can sometimes do more harm than good.

One such simplistic notion is the belief that anxiety can or even must be treated with medication. In a radically pro-medication paradigm, those who prefer to meditate, undergo deep breathing exercises or simply work on using their personal issues to their own benefit as best they can might be marginalized.

Side effects and other perfectly scientific defenses for not treating anxiety symptoms with pills aside, those college students who choose not to medicate may soon be a minority. According to the Center for Collegiate Mental Health’s annual report—which spans 140 campuses—in 2015, one out of three college students had taken psychiatric medication. Anxiety was listed by the study as the number one primary concern of students receiving treatment.

That there is not a one-size-fits-all solution for anxiety disorders and other mental illnesses does not discount the need for psychiatric research. Still, it seems that if a huge number of college students complain of symptoms like shakiness, jumpiness and a racing heart, there are two possibilities: either just about everyone has a disorder or society’s joint tendencies to pathologize and seek better living through chemistry have led us to stigmatize the very thing so many are working to de-stigmatize.

Upon breaking a bone or contracting a bad flu, the obvious thing to do is to go to the doctor. Doctors are not infallible and medical opinions are often wrong, but the general procedure for those fortunate enough to live with healthcare access in the developed world is to complain of a physical symptom or ailment, get a prescription and take the pills as directed.

Following this same process with respect to anxiety can result in terrible consequences. The complex and often uncomfortable truth is that it can be incredibly difficult to draw a line between what constitutes a “disorder” and what is an integral part of an individual’s personality. I would argue that certain ideas about mental illness and how it should be treated can actually result in the partial or even total erasure of an individual’s personality—particularly when that personality is chemically altered with psychiatric drugs as a matter of course.

In our effort to give anxiety disorders and other mental illnesses legitimacy by treating them like every other illness, we have lost the ability to recognize the important distinctions between the physical and the psychological. Similarly—in ostensibly embracing mental and emotional difference—we have paradoxically lost our ability to tolerate quirks, as what once may have simply qualified as a healthy degree of neuroticism is now labeled as something much more dangerous. Until a certain degree of anxious behavior is recognized as entirely normal and perhaps even desirable, unjust stigmas will persist.

Subtext in childcare posters promotes pro-life agenda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geneseo advisement lacks guidance, structure

As a spring semester junior, I am very aware of the stress from registration and class selection. I have one more year to complete the required classes to qualify for graduation and, as is the case with many of my peers, staying an extra semester would not be ideal. And as a double major, time is tight to fit the essential courses into two looming semesters and one last summer session.

After three long, eventful years, I have encountered a myriad of problems with Geneseo’s advisement process. Advisement has driven me to feel an anxiety not proportionate to the actual work necessary for a successful registration period. These problems revolve around a lack of communication between adviser and student, which, instead of creating independence, leaves students unsure of how to combat confusions on registration requisites.   

As part of this fundamental knowledge, the general education requirement is rooted in the college’s liberal arts background. The general education requirement is valuable to students looking to receive a globally conscious education—yet the implementation of these requirements can frequently be misleading, resulting in mistakes in a student’s selection of classes.

As a victim of this confusion, I took two science classes—one each semester of my freshman year—expecting both to cover the science general education requirement. I did not find out until second semester junior year that, because both classes were under the same “GSCI” prefix, I would still need to take another class to cover the extent of the requirement.

Although I take responsibility for missing this policy in the requirement, I find it surprising that no one stepped forward to mention that I should take a science under a different prefix, especially since I was still a first semester freshman at the time of this registration. It was only after the implementation of DegreeWorks two years later that I noticed I was walking into my senior year with an extra requirement.

Business administration major junior Courteney Bengen misunderstood the fine arts general education requirements and felt unaided by her adviser. “My adviser signed me up freshman year for an art history class but never mentioned anything about taking a class with a different prefix to fulfill the requirement,” she said. “I signed up for another art history only to find out two weeks into class that it wouldn’t count toward my gen-ed requirement. I had to withdraw and it set me behind.”

These simple mistakes could be avoided with a more attentive, interactive advisement staff, yet students consistently feel they are on their own when it comes to registration.

The problem seems to originate with the insufficient and irregular communication between student and adviser. Either the professor has little time, the student has little time or neither fully grasps the necessity of discussing in detail and in person the scheduling process each semester. This lack of open discussion allows for mistakes to be overlooked. Additionally, students may feel abandoned or uncomfortable when asking for additional help we should be doing it all on our own, right?

It is important to note that not all students fall victim to neglect. Political science and sociology double major senior Aimee Bacher expressed that her adviser treats each advisee at an individual level with respect. “She always asks about my goals and helps me map out a plan to try to reach them,” Bacher said.

The disparity between dedicated faculty and those not so dedicated leaves many confused as to why their adviser seems to lack the attentive nature that their neighbor may receive elsewhere.

Although it is a two-way street and students need to actively participate in the conversation, appointments for advisement ceaselessly feel like little more than removing a hold on an account an act that advisers frequently dismiss over email. Whether the solution is changing our attitudes or physically hiring actual advisement administrators, a solution must be found in order to contest the issue.

It can all be summarized by my peer’s response to my question on her experience with Geneseo’s advisement: “What advisement?”

FBI iPhone hacking echoes larger privacy concerns

The FBI’s recent lawsuit against Apple brought to our attention the importance of maintaining consumer privacy in our growing technological culture. The FBI—while investigating the Dec. 2 shooting in San Bernardino, California—demanded that Apple allow the Bureau to hack the alleged shooter’s iPhone to obtain information. Apple released an inspiring public address refusing the demand and ensuring consumer privacy that eventually caused conflict with the federal government.

The FBI has since dropped the lawsuit because they obtained what they needed—they hacked the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone without any help from Apple. The FBI was able to override the iPhone's security system that locks the phone after a certain number of failed password inputs to allow an infinite number of login attempts. By getting through this software, the FBI said any phone could be hacked within 26 minutes.

Apple is desperate to understand how it was done, as it completely condemns their unwavering efforts to maintain the protection of personal information from government surveillance—or worse. Whether or not the FBI is legally—or morally—obligated to disclose their hacking methods, they still did it in the first place. Even if the FBI hired an underground hacker or figured it out by pure luck, they were able to do whatever they wanted to do even when the company in question was against it. This implies that privacy does not matter if our government is determined to get whatever information it wants.

In the San Bernardino case, there might actually be important information regarding the incident stored on the alleged shooter’s phone. A motive exists that aims to investigate and possibly prevent future violence and terrorism. It is uncertain, however, if the line between righteous and corrupt motives will be blurred in future situations where privacy is violated.

There is no way to completely ensure that future government hacking will not happen to everyday citizens. It is unfortunately difficult to go against powerful institutions in the United States such as the FBI, especially when those institutions have access to advanced technology and information. This case brings feelings of discomfort and paranoia as we can see that there is no definite way to protect our privacy and information from those who are determined enough to obtain it.

Treatment of protestors violates democratic values, civility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sharapova incident innocent, misunderstood mistake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kardashian nude photo does not deserve feminist backlash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claims in socialism event article unfair, largely inaccurate

I am concerned about the publication of a March 3 editorial in The Lamron that claims in its headline that the International Youth and Students for Social Equality at Geneseo—of which I am the president—“fails to exemplify true political ideals.”

It is clear that the article was neither copy edited nor fact-checked to any significant degree. It is so sloppily written that it manages to incorrectly state the name of the organization it is attacking in the very first sentence.

The absence of fact-checking suggests that no one made a serious review of its journalistic merits. Did anyone ask, “Is this a scurrilous, bad faith attack on a political opponent and only using the school newspaper as leverage to intimidate students who hold views contrary to those of the author?”

The previous behavior of the writer suggests this to be the case. After attending the meeting he referenced in the article, he came to a second well-attended meeting, during the course of which he objected to the IYSSE receiving funds reserved for student activities.

This suggests that—far from being a political novice “eager to learn more than just [his] basic understanding of socialism” and leaving “disappointed and frustrated”—the writer holds definite political views.

And what are those views? He lets the cat out of the bag when he takes exception to our having “openly denounced the Democratic Party”—the horror—“with unfair and inaccurate criticisms.”

The writer does not elaborate on what those criticisms were, but this deficiency is easily corrected. Speaker IYSSE National Secretary Andre Damon said that President Barack Obama’s administration had bailed out Wall Street to the tune of trillions of dollars, started or supported wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria, spied on the private communications of the whole world and carried out drone strikes that have led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people, as well as at least four American citizens.

Unlike a plurality of the American people—and especially young people—who, for these and other reasons, see the Democratic Party as a tool of billionaires or otherwise undeserving of their support, the writer expresses his belief that “not voting Democrat is hurting the individual’s personal interest.”

It is his right to hold this view, but The Lamron should have sent this editorial back to him asking that he get the facts—such as the name of the organization he is denouncing—include quotations straight from the lecture and make a good faith effort to explain how the speaker’s criticisms of the Democratic Party were “unfair and inaccurate” beyond personally disagreeing with them.

These are the basic journalistic responsibilities of editors, something I picked up during my time with The Lamron as an assistant Opinion editor. Without them, The Lamron runs the risk of enabling the writer’s undemocratic project of preventing the political opposition to the two parties of big business—held in different forms by hundreds or thousands of Geneseo students—from being expressed in student activities.