Effects of global warming overlooked by media

We’ve seen many critical conversations ignored and underappreciated by the media and collective public during this election year. One of these discussions––one of the most important—is the impending catastrophe of man-made global warming. Both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announced in August that July 2016 was the hottest month ever recorded since 1880 when data collection first began. Combined with lingering El Niño conditions, the steady increase of global temperatures produced the hottest month ever. This startling fact, however, received minimal media coverage or public acknowledgment.

Our society has reached a point where news about climate change is no longer shocking. Although July 2016 is now the warmest month on record, we also received the same news in July 2015 and July 2011—July 2016 was the 15th consecutive month of record-breaking monthly temperatures. Climate change has lost all of its shock value; it has become mundane.

The planet is heating up quickly and we are simply not as terrified as we need to be. Our planet is getting closer and closer to hitting the so-called “tipping point” from the enormous amount of carbon we pump into the atmosphere. In essence, with the constant heating of the environment, we are on track to start a feedback loop, causing more warming and leading to a catastrophically hotter planet.

According to the International Energy Agency, the worst-case scenario predicts an approximate 11 degree Fahrenheit increase in warmth by 2100. The best-case scenario predicts an approximate 3.6 degree Fahrenheit increase that would cause Long Island, New York to completely flood over—possibly before the turn of the next century. The devastating effects of climate change will be felt across the globe, disproportionately affecting the world’s poorest.

News outlets today—especially cable news channels or websites—thrive on shock value and anger-inducing stories. This is especially true in a year with a fierce presidential race characterized by insults, drama and immature disagreements. Mainstream news sources have become reckless and irresponsible in their obsession with presidential politics, and climate change is one of many issues that have taken a back seat to election coverage this year.

It’s time for the media to turn away from the relentless political gossip and discuss the issue that could potentially have the largest impact of all: global warming.

Sexist advice article indicative of societal heteronormativity

ModernMan “dating and relationship expert” Dan Bacon’s 2013 article “How to Talk to a Woman Who is Wearing Headphones” recently resurfaced on the Internet, causing an uproar across media platforms. The ModernMan site is known for giving style tips and dating advice to men, with Bacon’s article coming under fire from women taken aback by the sexist, objectifying tone Bacon uses to instruct men on how to approach a woman. Criticisms of the article center on the idea that a man is recommending other men to bother women who might not want to be bothered, particularly when they are wearing headphones. For example, The Huffington Post notes that Bacon’s article claims, “Women who have chosen to put something over and/or in their ears that actively prevents them from having to hear anything else do want to talk to random men—they just need some nudging.”

Listening to headphones is a conventional social cue indicating that a person doesn’t want to be disturbed. This, however, doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of what is wrong with Bacon’s article. The article is a perfect example of how Internet dating sites continue to encourage dangerously dated gender stereotypes in an increasingly diversifying world.

As a woman, Bacon’s article was particularly unsettling to read, though it is genuinely demeaning to anyone who may read it. Bacon writes to his male audience as if they have never spoken to another human being before in their life.

He instructs men to “wave your hand in her direct line of vision” and to “pretend to be taking headphones off your head, so she fully understands what you mean” in order to gain the attention of a woman. This over-simplification of the social situation represents both men and women as unintelligent and socially inept.

Bacon’s writing also portrays women as dim-witted props who simply wait for a man to approach them—as if the only possible reason they could be sitting in a public place is to find a “boyfriend (or even a new lover).”

Furthermore, Bacon says, “Women know that [it] is the man’s role to be confident enough to walk over and talk to a woman he finds attractive, so they have a chance to meet.” This singular statement alone would be enough to encourage a passionate, feminist critique of his article since he essentially claims that women are just waiting around to be confronted by a man.

Romance in the 21st century is generally very accepting, as dating norms of the past have been pushed to the wayside. Despite this, it seems that dating sites and blogs haven’t caught up with society’s critique of heteronormative gender stereotypes.

We need to use Bacon’s offensive article as a gateway to discuss the demeaning and negative way that popular dating blogs and websites talk about gender. It is crucial that we continue to be critical of articles such as Bacon’s and that we remain aware of the ways in which the media influence public perception of gender roles.

Pipeline protest exemplifies suppressed freedom of assembly

The United States’ nationalistic culture continually emphasizes and protects the specific freedoms and rights its citizens were granted in the Constitution. Freedom of speech, for example, is so celebrated and ingrained in our daily lives that it reaches the point where we would be troubled—and in trouble—if it were taken away. I argue that while the freedom of assembly is one of the most important rights U.S. citizens have exercised in recent years, it is gradually being threatened by a wave of public impatience and intolerance. Protests have been used as methods of resistance within social movements and organizations for centuries and are the perfect example of behaviors the freedom of assembly protects. Recent national protests—such as those conducted by the Black Lives Matter movement in response to police brutality—are often met with aggressive police contact and suppression of assembly rights. It is this violence and aggression that draws my attention to the current treatment of Native American protestors in North Dakota.

According to National Public Radio, members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other allied indigenous tribes are protesting the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline, a crude oil pipeline which could disturb sacred Sioux lands and contaminate reservation drinking water.  Men, women and children were attacked with pepper spray and some were bitten by guard dogs on Saturday Sept. 3 in response to growing tensions between demonstrators and private property owners.

There seems to be a trending opinion among average citizens that protests must be quiet and peaceful. If demonstrators show any signs of aggression––such as yelling at authorities or trespassing––they deserve to be suppressed and physically punished. Because the pipeline demonstrators grew to a big crowd and refused to leave the private construction site, authority challenged them. Disturbing photographs from the protest show dogs’ bared teeth, red with blood from attacking demonstrators.

The idea that private property is more important than the safety of human lives is one I struggle to comprehend. When hundreds of impassioned people organize together for a certain cause, it must be treated seriously and with respect. In this situation, simple trespassing laws allowed suppression methods to be introduced. This not only endangered the lives of the demonstrators, but it tarnished the reputation of their cause by suggesting they were delinquent and dangerous.

This protest, however, did succeed where other demonstrations often fail—it achieved its first goal and temporarily halted the construction of the pipeline. This victory reflects the necessity to push the boundaries of authority in order to gain attention; it is unlikely that a protest will make a difference if there is no explicit action or disturbance taking place.

The growing problem with this, though, is the shrinking threshold of what authorities will tolerate during demonstrations. When trespassing and chanting—common and manageable protest methods—provoke dangerous police interference, the freedom to assemble gets more and more difficult to achieve. If demonstrators are unable to make their statement through a nonthreatening, meaningful disruption without the fear of serious injury, we must rethink how our freedom to assemble is being policed.

This is not a suggestion that protesters are always peaceful and morally right in their demonstrations or that they never threaten harm to others. But the current trend of unnecessarily violent backlash against social and political demonstrations eerily echoes an oppressive, militaristic state.

Two-party system prevents political diversity, change

With Election Day quickly approaching, politics will become even more present in our lives than they already are. This cycle’s campaigns have been interesting to say the least—it can and should be accepted that neither the Republican nor Democratic parties have walked away from their campaigns and debates unscathed. Both major party candidates have been in the media’s crosshairs, receiving backlash and a surprising amount of criticism within their respective parties. Many Americans are researching third party candidates––including former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party––in response to dissatisfaction with both major parties. This ongoing election season makes us question how the two-party system became so powerful and if there is a way to revise it.

Consistently, Americans state their overall dissatisfaction with their party’s candidates. The Pew Research Center for United States Politics and Policy reported that, after conventions, only 43 percent of Democrats and 40 percent of Republicans are satisfied with this election’s candidates. If a large percentage of Americans are not satisfied with the two major party candidates, we shouldn’t be following the same frustrating political system.

Political scientists answer the faults of the two-party system and how we can avoid them with Duverger’s Law. Named for French sociologist Maurice Duverger, the principle states that elections with “winner-takes-all” mechanisms favor two-party systems. Additionally, it states that the fusion of parties is unavoidable in a two-party system—one of the two major parties will act as an amorphous blob, absorbing any successful policy a third party may develop. This is unfortunate for voters because the policy they support may become tied to a larger party that they do not support.

Duverger also found that voters have a tendency to desert third party candidates on the idea that their success rates are minimal. As reported by The Fiscal Times, in a year when the Democratic National Convention had a budget of $84 million, you can see how easy it is for the two major parties to outpace their third party competitors. Align that with little government involvement in party finances and you can be assured that the Republican and Democratic parties have a good chance of dominating other presidential hopefuls.

Many now question if it is even worth it to get a third party candidate on the ballot—an action that might shake up the entrenched two-party plague. Stein or Johnson would need to earn a support rating of 15 percent or higher to get on the ballot and into the debates.

As noted in The New York Times, Johnson has reached double-digit support ratings in the polls, while Stein is lagging behind. When Vermont Sen. and former presidential nominee Bernie Sanders was asked about the threshold on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he said that 15 percent is “probably too high” and should be lowered by the Commission on Presidential Debates, as it discourages third party competition. If this standard was lowered, it would allow third party candidates such as Gary Johnson and Jill Stein to enter the race earlier, debate earlier and become a reasonable option for the American people. Simply because this support standard is so high and any third party runner is financially outpaced, we may never see them on the campaign trail.

During this election season, voters are scrambling on both sides—the classic two-party system is no longer our ally. While the system offers more stability, clarity and quicker processes, there are smaller chances for other policy options to come to public attention; two parties gain total political power and control over voter support.

Although our current political system has survived for decades, perhaps now we are finally seeing the true, frustrating and brutal facets of it.

Unrelated double majors enhance education outcome

A new semester is upon us, and while sitting through classes of varying levels of interest and going through personal crises about future career goals, I want to encourage students to make their college career more enriching. If students have the time to add multiple minors or a double major, they should do it—but in an area of study completely different from their first major. I am a senior English and economics double major. I knew I wanted to study English when I came to Geneseo, but was overwhelmed by the numerous English and philosophy courses offered my first semester. This frustration inspired a search through 13 different academic departments for other interesting major options.

Some students believe that studying vastly different subjects is useful because it helps develop personal skills in two distinctive fields. What is most important about the double major, however, is the impact it can have on one’s perspective of the world—a double major stimulates intellectual development.

I am interested in studying humanity, an area where my two disciplines could not have more dissimilar views. The majority of literary writers adopt a humanistic understanding of people that values individual emotion, conscience and empathy. On the other hand, economists tend to ignore these characteristics; they believe self-interest is the root of human nature’s motivation.

Being confronted with such conflicting views has forced me to think critically about two incredibly intelligent groups of thinkers. I’ve synthesized both perspectives to understand why some people behave in one way and others behave differently. My understanding of human nature—while certainly not perfect—is more complete as a result.

It is unlikely that I will ever have a job where I use a combination of information about Alfred Lord Tennyson’s use of extended metaphor and the determinants of international exchange rates. But barring those who enter academia, most people don’t end up using most of the knowledge they learn in their undergraduate degree, anyway.

Life does not happen within the confines of a single discipline. Every one of us is affected by sociological factors, political realities, physics formulas, mathematical certainties and artistic genius. Dipping one’s toes into many of these perspectives is useful, and having a sustained relationship with more than one of them better prepares one for the multidimensionality of life.

The goal of a liberal arts education should be to train an open and powerful mind. There is no one more open-minded and powerful than someone who can do two things at once.

Social instability makes Rio controversial Olympic host

To conclude the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil displayed slow-motion replays of iconic finishes and the emergence of new household-name athletes—all with the United States at the top of the medal table. While the Olympics were entertaining and successful as a whole, the instability of Brazil’s social, economic and political infrastructure cast a shadow over the games—not only during the 16-day event, but months before it began. According to The Huffington Post, an estimated 22,000 Brazilian families were evicted from their homes to construct Olympic facilities, with more than 6,000 families having lost their homes. To prepare for tourists, police brutality escalated within recent years to unsettling levels—one in five homicides in Rio de Janeiro were caused by police in 2015. Additionally, Guanabara Bay—the setting for some swimming and sailing events—was polluted up to “1.7 million times what would be considered highly alarming in the U.S. or Europe.”

Although these problems were not enough to impede the games overall, there were many setbacks and uncomfortable conflicts for visiting athletes. According to The New York Times, some buildings in the athletes’ village were completely uninhabitable because of exposed wiring and leaking pipes. In addition, during diving and synchronized swimming competitions, multiple swimming pools turned a nauseating green color that worried athletes and went viral on social media.

It is unfortunate that Brazil was unable to solve its internal problems before attempting a project as big as the Olympic Games, but it isn’t surprising that the results were unsatisfactory. The country hosted the 2014 FIFA World Cup amid similar issues with violence, homelessness and debt to the disadvantage of its impoverished population. These issues stayed under the media’s radar until it resurfaced with Olympic coverage—but are still inactively addressed.

Potential Olympic host cities are evaluated on 18 different eligibility criteria and voted on by the International Olympic Committee. Rio de Janeiro was evaluated on its security, transportation, construction plans and more—so it is any wonder why it was deemed fit for hosting with its myriad of internal issues and social strife.

Now that the Olympic Games are over, time will tell if Brazil can transform its societal infrastructure on its own or if it will receive the help it needs to recover.

Social activism addresses sexual assault on campus

Too often, statistics regarding sexual assault on college campuses are ignored. Perhaps this is because the consequences of their reality are horrifying. The New York Times reported that in 2015 “more than one-fourth of undergraduate women at a large group of leading universities said they had been sexually assaulted.”

The problem seems to be worsening at elite universities such as the University of Michigan, where 34 percent of female seniors experienced nonconsensual sexual contact, followed by 32 percent at Yale and 29 percent at Harvard. These numbers are unacceptable and it seems that sexual violence has become a normalcy among female students, as opposed to a rare atrocity.

Arguments have been made that the statistics surrounding this issue are “notoriously unreliable” or “inconsistent,” but these claims are dubious. The United States Department of Justice defines sexual assault as “any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.” Picking apart ratios and percentages based on what kind of assault the female endured is not only insensitive, but it also has no bearing on the concern at hand. It does not erase the fact that women across the country are being threatened by sexual violence. Furthermore, there should be a presumed moral standard that any type of nonconsensual sexual action is unacceptable.

To combat the ignorant attitude regarding sexual assault, social media campaigns in the past few years have informed many and allowed for important dialogue. Not only have these crusades raised awareness, but they have also given women the courage to speak about their personal experiences with the issue. There has been a plethora of successful YouTube videos, Twitter hashtags and Facebook campaigns. Many students and organizations have been taking actions through social media to try and create increased awareness.

One recent campaign by students at Duke University went viral on Facebook. The page titled “Breaking Out” featured student survivors of sexual violence. There was a photo exhibit that pictured survivors with posters featuring quotations that illustrated their stories concerning sexual violence. The images were powerful, and those who participated displayed great courage. The campaign also inspired many other college students to speak out against this injustice.

This is important because, as Generation Progress reports, “Nine out of 10 assaults are committed by repeat offenders” and “the incidents begin in semi-public spaces like parties or dorm rooms.” This proves that sexual assault is not an unstoppable anomaly, but an issue that can be diminished if all students and faculty on campuses work together.

Here at Geneseo, students took action by participating in Sexual Assault Awareness Week from April 11–16. This included awareness events such as discussions regarding sexual harassment, a vigil, a Take Back the Night march, poetry readings and a multitude of speakers who discussed Geneseo’s sexual assault policy. The Women’s Action Coalition also utilizes social media by sharing photos and events on Facebook in order to reach a wide range of students.

Speaking out against this injustice is imperative, and our generation can use social media as a tool to have our voices heard. Instead of hiding from the statistics that scare parents as they send their daughter off to college, we need to embrace them. Acknowledging that sexual assault is not only present, but also rampant on college campuses is necessary. Here at Geneseo, we need to work together in hopes that one day we can truly “take back the night.”

Prisons need funding for educational programs

P

          arts of our society need more attention to detail than others. The criminal justice system is given surprisingly little notice considering the impact it can have on our society. Because the United States has the most incarcerated citizens, we need to start paying more attention to our legal system and the policies we implement. Implementing an effective system will prevent future crime and reduce our prison population.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are currently 2,188,000 people in federal, state and local jails and 6,814,600—those in prison included—are under correctional supervision. This means 0.7 percent of people are incarcerated and 2.13 percent are supervised by correctional services.

We need to consider our moral obligations to criminals. We tend to act “tough on crime” rather than focus on productive programs for individuals because we believe people should be held accountable and punished for their crimes. We also tend to encourage additional spending on corrections in the name of public safety.

Unfortunately, punishment of action does not lead to crime reduction—in fact, it increases recidivism, a person’s relapse into crime. Our policies are aimed at creating more prison capacity and at addressing repeating offenders than trying to allocate financial support to programs for criminals to return to society. Our obligation is to provide each prisoner with a chance to do better or to adequately perform duties when they return as a citizen.

Allocating financial resources to support college educational programs within incarceration facilities allows us to reduce the recidivism occurring in our society. A college education will increase employability of felons, where if they had none there could be an inclination back into crime. Crime needs to be an unattractive alternative to criminals in order to reduce the likelihood of repeating it.

A part of our moral obligation is to understand the outcomes and predispositions of others. Ex-felons are not seen as the most employable. Educating them would be our moral responsibility to provide them with equitable opportunity.

Granted, this action requires more financial support, but for now our focus and our obligation can be focused on allocating the current resources to another area. We should move resources from increasing prison capacity and from reentering policy for prisoners to supporting polices that integrate the prisoner back into society. A solution to this problem, in general, lies in our participation as citizens. It should already be our moral obligation to stay informed of the policies that are enacted around us—understanding where the money should be put and how we want to treat incarcerated individuals now falls on us.

Current policies are setting offenders up for failure because of their specific focus. The best way to change current policy makers’ minds is by having a grassroots movement to promote the policy that is working. Immediate, concrete needs of prison facilities are important, but allowing one to see how we can change the immediate needs is important as well. In a system where it seems changeable, we need to start a solution of faith in people somewhere.

In face of intolerant politics, acceptance and diversity vital

A recent editorial in The New York Times describes a former United States senator's experience falling in love with a man after his wife's death—and it echoes a small, yet important sentiment in the landscape of American politics.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Harris Wofford announced his upcoming marriage to a man 50 years his junior, whom he met a few years after his wife's passing. Wofford said he does not label himself based on the people he loves, but his story relates to many in the LGBTQ+ community. At a time when LGBTQ+ issues are dominating headlines about gender-neutral bathrooms and discriminatory North Carolina legislation, it is refreshing to see stories of politicians coming out in acceptance of diversity in the face of prejudice and intolerance.

The controversy over North Carolina's discriminatory anti-LGBTQ+ policies—in addition to the recent comments by a North Carolina senator claiming the state needs to “stay straight”—is exhausting and frustrating for many on the other side of the debate. With the legalization of same-sex marriage in June 2015—which Wofford said he thought would be impossible to accomplish in his lifetime—comes the inevitable backlash from more conservative perspectives.

There have been many LGBTQ+ politicians in American politics and history—especially on the left-wing side—but the inclusion of diverse identities in politics seems more important than ever, as our country faces increasing pressure to adhere to more restrictive and traditional “values” and policies. In the current election season, most Republican presidential candidates have established anti-LGBTQ+ platforms that unfortunately attract a large population of conservative voters.

Wofford's piece is optimistic about the country's future, despite growing right-wing concern over reverting back to traditional American values that would make the country “great again.” Our college-aged generation has a potentially strong influence on the current election, and with ideas of acceptance and diversity in our minds, the tolerant future Wofford did not believe he would live to see will win over the hate and ignorance our country currently faces.

Geneseo should raise tuition to fund liberal arts

I cannot help but notice that our college is at a crossroads: do we continue to invest in science, technology, engineering and math subjects and let the traditionally “liberal arts” subjects suffer? The seemingly obvious answer is that we need both, but reaching this end will not be easy.

Geneseo has done a wonderful job over the past decade investing in STEM departments. This is evident to anyone who enters a classroom in the Integrated Science Center. The rooms are modern and highly conducive to learning. The building is a result of a $53 million construction project that was completed 10 years ago. More recently, the $23 million Bailey Hall was completed to hold the anthropology, geography, psychology and sociology departments—social sciences that walk the line between STEM and non-STEM.

Based on these investments alone, it’s no surprise that STEM departments appear to be growing at a faster rate than non-STEM departments. A perfect example on the other end is the communication department. The department is currently housed in Blake B—one of the most rundown, decrepit buildings on our campus. The history department also uses horribly outdated facilities; the department is in the basement of Sturges Hall. Both buildings look and feel like underfunded high schools without proper temperature control systems.

If this trend of putting non-STEM subjects in Cold War-era buildings continues, the long-term effects on Geneseo will be disastrous. The top students interested in liberal arts subjects will start going to schools with better facilities, opportunities and resources that offer them good scholarships. As a result, liberal arts departments will start to disappear—much like the studio art department did a few years ago. Geneseo could gain a reputation as a solid STEM school, while its reputation as the most prestigious small State University of New York school disappears.

The solution to this problem may not be popular among students: raise tuition to generate the revenue needed to build modern facilities. SUNY tuition is amongst the lowest in the country. This gives students from a large range of backgrounds access to higher education. Tuition at Geneseo was $6,470 for the 2015-16 academic year; I propose raising this by one-third to about $8,700.

It may look like this proposed tuition hike would disenfranchise a large population of students. Offering more merit and need-based scholarships as part of an admissions package would alleviate this issue. Incoming freshmen with high grade point averages and standardized test scores could be awarded scholarships that would functionally act as discounts on tuition.

Additionally, economically and socially disenfranchised students could be given scholarships based upon obstacles they faced on their path to college. Students who do not meet these criteria would pay the “sticker price” of $8,700—still $700 less than the national in-state tuition average. The current endowed scholarships would still be awarded, as they have a negligible effect on gross tuition revenue.

Based on the class of 2019, if 74 percent of incoming students paid the new “sticker price,” the remaining students could—in theory—receive free tuition and gross tuition revenue would remain the same. More realistically, if the remaining students paid half-tuition—less than the current tuition price—gross tuition revenue would go up 17 percent. That money could be invested in professors, facilities, research grants, student travel to academic conferences and so much more—both STEM and non-STEM departments would benefit immensely. This is a vastly oversimplification of scholarship distribution, but the end revenue total is representative of what we could expect under this system.

If Geneseo does not invest in itself, the academic ceiling for our college becomes frighteningly low. In order to maintain our high potential as students—and attract the next generation of gifted students—we need to change our tuition model to generate the revenue needed to compete with the country’s top liberal arts colleges.

Beyoncé album empowers black women

After giving fans just one week’s notice, Beyoncé dropped her new album LEMONADE as well as a visual album that aired as an HBO special of the same title on Saturday April 23. Beyoncé had a lot to say on this album, and it’s safe to say that she didn’t hold back.

Some common threads that Beyoncé wove throughout LEMONADE include betrayal, racism, empowerment and forgiveness. Using her art and a revolutionary platform that the music industry hasn’t seen before, Beyoncé spoke her mind on these heavy topics not only through her lyrics, but also through spoken word, images and videos on her visual album.

With LEMONADE, Beyoncé effectively channels her anger toward her husband—rapper Jay Z—into her art in order to help black women worldwide move past their own emotional pain. In addition, Beyoncé incorporates instances of racism to specifically acknowledge black women’s struggles throughout history—struggles that remain relevant today.

According to The New York Times, “Marital strife smolders, explodes and uneasily subsides on ‘Lemonade.’” Admittedly, I was shocked by how explicitly Beyoncé calls out Jay Z for cheating. But she does more than just express her anger—she acknowledges the ridiculous backlash that women often receive after expressing this anger when they discover their significant other has been cheating, which I think is admirable of her.

Amidst the cheating that Beyoncé fearlessly brings up throughout LEMONADE, she also discusses racism. In the middle of “Don’t Hurt Yourself” on her visual album, there is a pause in the song that cuts to videos of various black women as Malcolm X intones, “The most disrespected woman in America is the black woman. The most unprotected woman in America is the black woman. The most neglected woman in America is the black woman.”

While some people may recall Malcolm X as an advocator of violence, I think that the point Beyoncé is trying to make is that Malcolm X’s words remain true today. Incorporating this quote from Malcolm X links black women’s pain—both historically and contemporarily—to the pain that Beyoncé experiences throughout her life as an African American woman. 

Huffington Post notes, “‘Freedom’ is also filled with stirring, soulful lyrics and powerful images of black women who have lost black men in their lives, including Gwen Carr, Sybrina Fulton and Lezley McSpadden, the mothers of Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, respectively.” Showing these women emphasizes Beyoncé’s point in that black women today continue to suffer and lack the respect they deserve from society because of their race.

Beyoncé may be a wealthy, popular vocal artist who’s known around the world, but as a black woman she’s still unprotected, disrespected and neglected. Due to the placement of the Malcolm X segment in the middle of an angry track that targets Jay Z’s lack of loyalty, I would argue that Beyoncé is calling out her husband for making her feel unprotected, disrespected and neglected. It took a lot of courage for Beyoncé to stand up to Jay Z in a public manner, but through this she shows women—especially black women—that they deserve to be protected, respected and cherished.

Time suggests that “in black women’s music, trifling men have long been metonyms for a patriarchy that never affords black women the love and life they deserve,” so perhaps Beyoncé used cheating as a metaphor for black women’s experiences in society ruled by men. Therefore, it’s possible that through the creation of LEMONADE, Beyoncé sought to empower and to support black women using a social construct with which women are familiar.

While this album feels quite personal, Beyoncé reaches out to black women in solidarity, showing the world that African American women still lack the respect they deserve because of their gender and the color of their skin. Beyoncé recognizes that silence isn’t the answer to these social problems—generating conversation is the only way to enact change—and Beyoncé is effectively using her music to foster the changes that we need to see in the world.

Anti-porn bill stigmatizes sex, perpetuates conservative views

U

tah Gov. Gary Herbert signed a resolution on April 19 declaring pornography a public health hazard. The SCR 9 resolution is non-binding and largely symbolic in its purpose, but the bill will serve to promote “education, prevention, research and policy change” in the hopes of raising public awareness of “the pornography epidemic that is harming the citizens of Utah and the nation.”

The bill primarily focuses on the negative impacts that pornography may have on the behavior and health of our society. It states that pornography can impact mental health, cause deviant sexual behavior, impact familial relationships and perpetuate harmful sexual behaviors and addiction. While many could argue that much of this is true, these deeper issues are not a direct result of the consumption of pornography.

Many anti-pornography feminists argue that the production of porn is directly harmful to women. It promotes the general idea that women’s sole purpose in heterosexual sex is to be objects. It depicts images of non-consensual sex, sex with underage women and perpetuates generally dangerous misconceptions about sex.

Furthermore, a majority of pornography is not only misogynist, but also transphobic, racist and homophobic. Many times pornography can confuse viewers—primarily young, heterosexual men—as to what is normal or what is consensual. Certain aspects of this bill could be seen as a positive step toward punishing the objectification of women.

A bill such as the SCR 9 resolution, however, is not the solution to the growing commodification of sex. Although the bill mentions the degradation of women that pornography creates, most of the bill promotes “traditional” family values and expresses harmful viewpoints of human sexuality. The bill states that pornography can create “sexual deviancy,” “hyper-sexualization” and will have “a detrimental effect on the family unit.”

These seem to be more driven toward promoting a conservative agenda—shaming people for expressing their sexuality and enforcing a monogamous lifestyle. It is essentially another way for white, heterosexual men in power to control the private sex lives of those that differ from their own.

This kind of thought will be harmful to porn industry workers, who are systematically taken advantage of and abused in their line of work. By further stigmatizing the sex industry, it becomes harder to regulate and discuss sex work openly—pushing workers farther into the background and putting them in dangerous situations.

In order to combat some of the issues this bill discusses, such as “the normalization of violence, abuse and rape,” “the hypersexualization of teens” and “the objection of women,” we need education and reform—not a ban on porn. Rather than simply trying to eliminate pornography, we need to change the way our society views sex entirely.

Blaming the “pornography epidemic” for the degradation and mistreatment of women would be a total misplacement of effort. Instead, we need to focus on giving high school and college-age students comprehensive sex education that not only focuses on the physical aspects of safe sex, but the importance of consensual sex and a heightened focus on female sexuality. Furthermore, we must reform the pornography industry through depicting mutually pleasurable and realistic sex scenes, regulating the use of protection and giving workers more rights in terms of benefits and unionization.

The SCR 9 bill would be ineffective in attempting to change prevalent, harmful ideas about sexuality. Declaring pornography a “public health hazard” will only further the shame and secrecy we often associate with sexuality. Reforming our attitudes toward both sexuality and the porn industry as a whole is the only effective way to combat the societal issues associated with porn.

Freshmen writing seminar unsuccessful, inconsistent

G

eneseo’s freshmen writing seminar INTD 105 could do better. In my time as a tutor at the Writing Learning Center, I have observed that many students come out of INTD without an understanding of how to form an argument or how to develop their ideas.

Some students were lucky enough to have professors who gave them a lot of helpful feedback and a chance to improve their grades by making progress, but the students who scraped through without understanding the difference between summary and argumentation are done a disservice. They will be unprepared for their required Humanities classes—which together account for seven percent of a degree—and, more importantly, they will enter the real world without being able to properly express an idea or argue a point.

The biggest problem with INTD is simply its immense variability. Professors are given free reign of their classes in order to encourage different methods and to allow the students to pick topics that interest them, and this approach is causing problems. Most courses use the writing handbook They Say, I Say to teach students the basic tactics of persuasion, but I have many students who will walk into a tutoring session and tell me their INTD used no texts on writing at all.

This might not be a problem if the professor is skilled at explaining the basics, but normally this is simply not enough. Writing is a craft students learn by doing and redoing. Furthermore, INTD is a general education requirement, meaning that many students do not want to be there and are therefore reluctant to put forth the effort required for this revision process. As a result, it is imperative that their professors provide clear, thoughtful and constructive feedback. Unfortunately, this is not the case for all professors.

“I think one’s INTD experience depends almost entirely on the professor you get,” biology major freshman Clark Davis said. “Not once did my professor return the previous paper to us before we turned in the next one. This gave us very little opportunity to improve, as we had no idea what we did wrong previously.”

Often, these cases of neglect originate with adjunct professors who may have little incentive to ensure their students’ future success, or from full-time faculty members who are stretched too thin with other obligations. But apart from the nationwide adjunct crisis and the general scarcity of resources at Geneseo, there are some problems with INTD that can be addressed.

The course should be overseen by a central committee, the same way that the Humanities courses currently are. This committee should exercise strict control over what happens in the classroom, ensuring that each class has the benefit of an accessible writing text that students can consult when writing their papers alone late at night. In addition, all INTD teachers should receive training in providing student feedback, so that a baseline standard can be established. The idea that there are many ways of teaching writing is nice—and true in a sense—but constructing our policies around it leads to some students getting left behind.

Writing is the art of thinking elegantly. Messy writing is evidence of messy thinking, and good writing gives a person the ability to convey their thoughts succinctly and eloquently. It is a skill that is useful in education, medicine, social work, pure science, law, business and engineering, which is why all majors have a requirement for a writing intensive course. Good writing is a hallmark of an educated person, and that is what we all should aspire to be.

Pro-life flyers promote resources for student mothers

Recently, flyers posted by Students for Life at Geneseo brought the availability of the pregnancy and parenting resources—such as childcare—at Geneseo into question. In the March 31 Lamron editorial “Subtext in childcare posters promotes pro-life agenda,” the columnist questioned the motives of our club in posting these flyers and went so far as to accuse the group of manipulation and deceit.

As a representative of Students for Life at Geneseo, I wanted to take a moment to explain the motives behind our efforts and propose an opportunity for partnership and progress.

According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, over 4.8 million American college students are parents. Of these students, about 1.1 million attend four-year institutions—both public and private—like Geneseo. In fact, parenting students represent about 15 percent of the total four-year undergraduate student body and about 26 percent of all United States undergraduates.

If we were to look at this community more closely, we would find that this parenting students population is 71 percent female. Of these student mothers, roughly 60 percent are single and “women of color are the most likely students to be raising children while pursuing a postsecondary degree.” Unfortunately, parenting students are unlikely to graduate within six years of college entry—and they are more likely to leave college with higher debt than their non-parenting peers. For many, this is a time when one’s educational and career goals are underway or within reach—an unplanned pregnancy would seem to come directly into conflict with these hopes and dreams.

At the heart of every pro-life versus pro-choice debate regarding abortion, there is the question that both sides must answer: how can we better respond to and provide solutions for women in unplanned or difficult pregnancies? Our answers to this question bring us into contentious debate.

For pro-lifers, we believe that abortion is a violent offense against both the preborn child and the mother. We believe that abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women because it forces a mother to choose between her child and her circumstances; it argues against the strength and capabilities of women and it creates a society where a woman’s fertility is treated as a disease and her motherhood as an inconvenience.

Some may not agree with our position on abortion and this is certainly a subject that we will continue to discuss and debate. We can—and should—however, agree on the need for more pregnancy and parenting resources on our campus.

Agreeing on this common ground is not a bad thing—in fact, it’s remarkable. Here is a solution that we can both enthusiastically agree to pursue. We have an opportunity to actually achieve something together. We can make positive progress on our campus to create an environment where pregnant and parenting students feel welcome and supported.

Pregnancy and parenthood should not limit one’s educational opportunities and our college community should advocate for more support and resources to empower our pregnant and parenting peers to succeed.

On choosing happiness over money in post-grad life

Arguably now more than ever before, students are under pressure to lead successful lives. This success is often measured in quantities such as one’s grade point average, class rank, salary, job position and more. Many accept that we must often make personal sacrifices in order to become successful in these categories.

For example, a person might love painting, but chooses to become a lawyer instead because it is the more reliable and conventionally accepted occupation. I believe that in situations where students should have to choose between happiness and conventional definitions of success in today’s world, they should choose happiness and recalibrate the way that they view success for themselves.

As the end of the semester steadily approaches, many students find themselves in positions where they must make important decisions—and accordingly make sacrifices in order to become successful. Freshmen are choosing majors, seniors are looking at graduate programs and jobs and everyone is feeling final exams slowly approach. At this time of the semester, we are hard-pressed to make important decisions about our future and this often entails sacrificing the happiness of the moment. Of course, there are examples of situations where we don’t have to choose between the two, but these cases do not come as frequently as some would like.

I wish to ask readers why we hold the common notion of success in such high esteem; is there something intrinsic in having a high GPA or a high-paying salary that makes them so desirable? I think most people would realize that the answer to the formerly posed question is, “No.” The numbers that determine our success mean nothing when they are looked at as just numbers.

These measures are valuable merely because we attach values to them—they do not mean any more to us than any other set of numbers we can think of. What is actually desired is the feeling of accomplishment that comes with it. We might feel pride in the fact that we are graduating summa cum laude and can get into any research institution we wish, or we may feel great material pleasure in a six-figure salary.

But this sense of euphoria that we get from conventional feelings of success could be described as just another form of happiness: one that is socially constructed. Perhaps with a more individualized approach to happiness—one in which we define what it means to be successful—we might be able to claim both success and happiness for ourselves, instead of being dictated by it.

Too many people today reach middle age and have sudden career changes after realizing they should've followed their dreams in their younger years. Instead of spending decades on jobs that we hate, we should prioritize being successful at the things we love—even if they are not considered as conventionally pragmatic in today’s job market. After all, life may be nothing more than a limited pursuit of happiness, and as such, it is important that our years here be the best years that we can possible make them be.

As students pick their majors and some seniors leave college to begin their professional careers, I hope that some consider working in fields that ignite their passions and make them excited to wake up every morning. If this entails being unsuccessful in the conventional sense of the word, then they need to work to redefine what they consider to be successful.

Liberal college values create biases in the classroom

I was in a class a few years ago when the professor posed a question and said, “Let’s say you write an assignment for which I give you an arbitrary grade.” He trailed off, laughed and continued, “Well, of course all grades are arbitrary.”

I don’t know why, but that moment has stuck with me and—in the midst of a contentious political season—I thought it was important to revisit it.

College campuses are consistently viewed as bastions for progressive thought and ideologies. This is as true now as it was during the 1969 student riots in Berkeley, California. As Geneseo is a state college in a conservative part of New York State, its identity is at a crossroads; it’s a progressive institution in the middle of a conservative region.

But as Geneseo touts itself as tolerant of all views, I began to wonder if the professors were as tolerant. If grades really are arbitrary—which seems truer for liberal arts majors—then is there danger in expressing political viewpoints different from what professors espouse?

Should I have spoken up when a professor in one of my classes recently told students to vote Democrat, regardless of whom the nominees are?

Make no mistake about it: Geneseo is a tolerant campus—as long as your viewpoint falls in line with the College and the professors. Websites like campusreform.org and others have shown how intolerant college campuses are toward viewpoints that, recently, are not aligned with Sen. Bernie Sanders or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

It’s time we face reality: our institution of “higher learning” welcomes all viewpoints as long as they don’t conflict with the message or agenda of the College. I know you’re probably rolling your eyes by now and hurriedly looking to move past this, but hear me out.

The differences between Republican presidential candidates Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Sen. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are massive. I would argue the differences are greater than they are for Sanders to Clinton. That being said, when was the last time you heard a student or professor advocating viewpoints other than Sanders’ or Clinton’s?

Never—it doesn’t happen. We’re at the point where grades are seemingly given out based partially on favor—such as a student doing the same work and putting in the same effort, but getting a better grade—and that favor lies in falling in line with the ideologies of the professor.

Our institution of higher learning is made up of professors with Ph.Ds standing up while we sit down to earn a bachelor’s degree. They speak and we listen. They give us assignments and we do them. It’s nothing more than operant conditioning.

Students and administrators across the country are so petrified to hear or see a viewpoint which differs from their own that they cite racism or sexism any time they experience disagreement.

In America, we welcome other viewpoints—including socialism, a system utilized by Josef Stalin which was responsible for over 20 million “unnatural deaths,” according to the International Business Times. Yet Sanders’ bumper stickers and ideas are everywhere. As Americans, we support his right to voice his position and platform. Do we do the same for Trump, Cruz or Kasich?

Around the campus, professors are telling us their beliefs by putting stickers on their door—such as in the political science department—or by openly saying who they support.

It’s important for us to remember that our grades are usually given with “participation” in mind. In this political season, it’s important to question what that word “participation” really means. Does it mean being in class and speaking, or does it mean getting along with the professors to get by? Remember: grades are arbitrary.

New ride-booking service focuses on female safety

The recent launch of the women-only ride-booking service Chariot for Women has received a lot of national attention. Started by former Uber driver Michael Pelletz, Chariot for Women seeks to create a taxi service with female drivers who serve women and children only. Pelletz created the service after seeing firsthand how dangerous car services can be for women traveling alone.

The service will provide a slew of safety features that companies like Uber and Lyft don’t provide, such as thoroughly checking each driver’s background, providing a secret word for passengers that will allow them to verify their driver’s identity at pickup, providing a photo of the driver to the passenger and allowing passengers to track their driver’s exact location to ensure they get into the correct car.

The service was set to launch on Tuesday April 19, but its growing popularity has the company looking to expand its original plan of operating out of Boston only. Uber has come under scrutiny recently for multiple violent incidents and sexual assaults involving passengers. While Uber requires its drivers to undergo background checks, some worry that the company is not thorough enough. Multiple cases of assault, harassment and violence have many women fearing for their safety when using these ride sharing services.

The launch of Chariot for Women could be a much-needed service for women and children looking to get around safely. While everyone has been told since birth to never get in a car with a stranger, it’s undeniable that ride-booking services are incredibly convenient, especially for Chariot for Women’s primary demographic of young women. This service is ideal for women who may be leaving unsafe bars and parties only to find themselves in another unsafe situation with their drivers. Chariot for Women offers a safe space for women in a world where such spaces are increasingly difficult to find.

What’s troubling about the launch of Chariot for Women, however, is not the service itself, but the mere need for the service. We must ask ourselves at what point will we entirely run out of safe places for women and start having to make serious cultural changes.

The absurd lengths that women have to go to in the hopes of traveling safely are exhausting. In addition to the huge amount of effort and planning that goes into staying safe during a night at a bar or a party, getting home from these situations proves just as difficult. The fact that Uber handled the incidents of violence so poorly is forcing women to use an entirely new service specially created to ensure that they won’t be attacked while trying to get from place to place.

Even more frustrating are some of the legal hurdles Chariot for Women has faced. Some claim that the practice would be illegal, as it refuses services to men. It is mind-boggling to think that anyone would take issue with women seeking an escape from the serious threat that ride-booking services may pose, but it is important to also remember that men can be victims of assault as well—an issue that Chariot for Women doesn’t account for.

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that getting into a car with a stranger will always present a certain degree of risk. The creation of Chariot for Women is undeniably positive, but only a somewhat immediate solution for a much deeper issue.

Pope Francis adapts religious values to a progressive era

Since his election in 2013, Pope Francis has been known as one of the most progressive popes the Vatican has ever seen. The Religion News Service explains that he “has said that the church must be more merciful and open, and he has encouraged debate on changing pastoral practices.” His positive influence on the Catholic Church is proving that traditional religious institutions can continue to adapt to modern culture. Whether or not you align with the values of the Catholic religion, Pope Francis’ forward-looking attitude is undeniably commendable.

Francis’ progressive goals for the Church were especially demonstrated by the new apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetita, released on April 8. It was published in multiple languages including English, German, French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish. Amoris Laetita is Latin for the “Joy of Love” and Francis wrote about marriage and family in context of the Catholic Church. He addressed many controversially charged issues that other popes have been hesitant to confront head on. This document—along with other actions of Francis—are positive steps that illustrate how traditional religious institutions can continue to adapt with the modern culture.

The New York Times reported that some of Francis’ transformative messages in Amoris Laetita included: an appeal for greater empathy, reviving injured marriages, denouncing antigay violence, encouraging single parents, questioning “safe sex” messages and creating a new route back into the Church for divorced Catholics.

These are all widespread issues in both religious and secular societies. Furthermore, the Washington Post predicted that although the Pope cannot make his changes too drastic, the exhortation serves as “symbolic” and will have a strong “media resonance.” This proved to be true, as many Catholic media outlets such as the National Catholic Reporter are encouraging Catholics to “take Amoris Laetitia’s challenge seriously.”

Francis, however, still did not make any changes to the Church’s strong stance against same-sex marriage. This personally seemed a major downfall of Amoris Laetita, albeit an expected one. The sacrament of marriage is one of the core beliefs of the Catholic religion; one can only hope Francis’ loving approach to Catholicism will eventually evoke greater acceptance. Francis did, however, speak about the need to regard all people with love. He expressed that “every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity.”

While Francis addressed the specific issues previously mentioned, he also generally spoke about the need for the Church to be more attentive. As The New York Times noted, he claims, “The church has made a mistake in alienating families,” and continued to describe “the pressures brought on families by poverty, migration, drug abuse and violence.” Admitting these mistakes is critical to transforming the Church and tailoring what some see as an “outdated” religion to one that accommodates modern pressures.

Regardless of your religious beliefs, the influence of Francis cannot be ignored. The Catholic Church is not solely just a belief system, but is also a transnational political and cultural actor that experiences widespread power. Francis is using that power to try and bring greater inclusion to a sometimes harsh world—which can give us a certain sense of hope.

A common practice of inclusion and acceptance is necessary, regardless of religious, ethnic or cultural divides. In our modern day society, this seems to be becoming more and more complicated. There is an undeniable importance in the fact that as millions of Catholics and non-Catholics listened, Francis ended a speech last year exclaiming that the “Good Shepard … excludes no one from his infinite love!”

Women's studies course should be requirement

As a sociology major and women’s studies minor, I find myself surrounded by intelligent individuals who dedicate their academic lives to understanding diversity and conflict in the social world. As final exams approach, I'm drowning in classwork and readings related to racism, sexism, global inequality and LGBTQ+ rights. Many times throughout this school year at Geneseo, however, I've experienced cognitive dissonance between the welcoming and stimulating discourse in the classroom and the problematic and offensive behavior of individuals outside on the greater campus.

In response to racist and anti-LGBTQ+ behaviors and language reported by many students throughout this year, I propose that introductory courses in women's studies be a general education requirement at Geneseo. To say I feel disappointment and shame about the actions of fellow students at my college while other students and I study this discipline in order to combat and prevent these actions is a great understatement.

The day I failed a physical geology exam was not a bright one for me—science and math are not my strong suits. I was required to take natural science courses to fulfill a general education requirement typical of a liberal arts school. I can guarantee, however, that categorizing rocks and understanding the formation of volcanoes is not relevant to my pursuit of studying social change and helping oppressed groups under my current areas of study.

When we reverse this example and claim that required learning about oppressed groups, social inequality and the social construction of gender is not relevant to science, technology, engineering and math majors, I definitely disagree. As students, we are all a part of a small community that echoes the function of larger society. No matter your major, you will encounter individuals who differ from yourself in many ways—including race, class, gender identity and ability. I believe all students should at least experience an introductory course about the diversity and complexity of different groups of people in order to combat ignorance on our campus.

All State University of New York colleges are required to enact education requirements of at least seven different disciplines—at Geneseo, only the social science requirement comes close to offering the type of requirement I suggest. There are at least 50 classes of different disciplines that can fulfill the two social science requirements. In my opinion, sociology courses are the best options on the current list to potentially address these issues. I believe an introductory course in women’s studies should be added as a required discipline.

As a student who transferred many Advanced Placement exam credits from high school as an incoming freshman, my social science requirements were already fulfilled. For students in similar situations, a student can go through their entire college career without taking a sociology or women’s studies course.

Geneseo’s women’s studies department has great introductory courses that address social and economic inequality, gender inequality, institutional racism and LGBTQ+ issues. For a predominantly white college, I believe it is important for students to learn about these topics as—from my own personal experience—students who come from majority-white areas are often unaware of inequalities and oppressions their fellow students may face.

I’m not sure if I believe that taking a geology course makes me a well-rounded liberal arts student. But I do believe all people should be educated on how to respect and support one another’s differences through an addition to the general education requirement.

It is very important for a college campus—especially one as small as Geneseo—to actively educate students starting freshman year about how to overcome ignorance and implicit biases. I believe addressing our own internalized issues and undoing our personal prejudices truly makes us well-rounded students.

Racial profiling continues targeting, harming individuals

As college students who stay up-to-date on current events, we’re unfortunately familiar with instances of racial profiling. When students at Geneseo report alleged incidents of racial profiling in our own community, it’s something important that we need to pay attention to. Recent high-profile incidents of racial profiling that occurred in California remind us that not only our direct community, but also our country as a whole has a long way to go to end baseless and unwarranted racist harassment.

A University of California, Berkeley student was recently removed from a Southwest Airlines flight after a nearby passenger became nervous that the student spoke Arabic on the phone. The student—who is Iraqi—was talking to his uncle in Baghdad about a speech he recently attended led by a United Nations official. After the call, a female passenger reported him to the flight crew, claiming she overheard him making “potentially threatening comments.”

This woman gave no indication that she actually spoke Arabic and could understand the student’s innocent conversation. This student was confronted and removed from the plane to support these ignorant and racist accusations. The student told The New York Times that he was excited to tell his uncle about the event and later felt afraid when an Arabic-speaking crew-member harshly questioned him. He believes the actions against him were Islamophobic.

Unfortunately, discrimination, harassment and violence against Muslim-Americans have increased since the 9/11 attacks and recent attacks claimed by the Islamic State. At first, we’re shocked that innocent college students are treated as potential terrorists just for being of another culture, yet at the same time, it is unsurprising.

America has a big problem with xenophobia and it constantly rears its ugly head in the forms of racial profiling and harassment. When we do not have to look any further than people our own age to see this discrimination, it shows how much farther we must go as a nation to undo our racial biases.