Ban on offensive team names needed to protect indigenous people

The Washington Redskins are the subject of an ongoing trademark lawsuit about their offensive team name and logo. While we believe team names deemed inappropriate or racist should be banned from earning trademark rights, it is disappointing that multiple other teams that exploit similar racially-charged terms have yet to face similar consequences. According to CBS News, the Supreme Court cancelled the Redskins’ trademark on their name and logo because of its racist connotation and rejected the team’s appeal on the decision on Monday Oct. 3. The team specifically requested that the Supreme Court hear their appeal before the lower courts, indicating the significant consequence the loss of trademark has on the team’s business.

While the team is still able to use the name, trademark laws do not protect it; this vulnerability allows outside companies to exploit the name and logo for unofficial merchandising. The team could lose millions of dollars to outside vendors selling their name on products.

This loss in profits is most likely the only consequence the team will face—other than possible public scrutiny over their name—because of free speech protections. But other sports teams, such as the Cleveland Indians, Kansas City Chiefs and Florida State Seminoles—the latter additionally using the face of a Native American man as their logo—all inappropriately commodify and mock indigenous people.

While activist groups petitioned and attempted legal action against the Redskins, there aren’t many options other than using trademark bureaucracy to affect the team. Redskins owner Dan Snyder refused to change the name in the face of opposition, and other teams with similar names have yet to face as much scrutiny.

Sports are an important American cultural phenomenon, and fans are often emotionally attached to the names and logos that represent their teams. It is always difficult to change beloved traditions, but traditions can always be critically analyzed through a contemporary lens.

While we can’t argue with the freedom of speech, the reluctance of multiple teams to address the historical implications of their names and logos says a lot about misguided American nationalism.

Surge in biased media threatens public knowledge

The media sources we use to observe the news are inevitably going to have some effect on how we interpret the world around us. The news programs we watch, newspapers we read and social media accounts we follow can all impact our opinions on current events.

Americans today get their news from a multitude of sources across an entire spectrum of political views and ideologies. The increase in available news platforms and diversity of opinions in the news may seem beneficial to our society and our politics, but it is actually dividing the nation. We naturally search for others who share our views of the world in order to gain affirmation and validation of those beliefs. In effect, this creates a human echo chamber full of people with similar beliefs, thus confirming our own opinions.

This is a dangerous phenomenon that leads people to become out of touch with reality and each other. Our nation has undoubtedly become more polarized on issues of politics, society and even race relations.

We cannot seem to find common ground on nearly anything—and the United States Congress is stuck in its worst gridlock in generations. It seems that the public and our leaders in government have become entrenched in their own ideological bubbles, seemingly incapable of working with others.

Our national news organizations have fed into this disturbing trend. For example, Fox News is an organization that arguably twists the news for a biased conservative audience. According to the Pew Research Center, 47 percent of self-identified conservatives identify Fox News as their primary news source.

Regardless of one’s opinion on the integrity of Fox, that’s a huge number of people tuning in to a singular channel to get their understanding of current events. This can lead to a mob mentality in which people simply go along with whatever their peers or trusted news personalities believe.

This phenomenon is not limited to just Fox or conservative populations. College campuses today are often overwhelmingly liberal and out of touch with much of our society in many ways. Liberal populations also need to recognize the biases they have and make honest attempts to understand people with whom they disagree.

In a fierce, seemingly never-ending election season, America’s divisions have never felt so intense and distinctly present. Our disagreements on politics and societal issues have become filled with vitriol and a lack of empathy for others’ opinions.

These are natural trends that form over time, but our politicians and news media have been incredibly irresponsible in their encouragement of this divide. These societal rifts produce strong emotional responses from people—perfect for click-bait headlines looking to rile up supporters.

In an age of a polarized media landscape, we can’t fall for these deceitful tactics. It’s crucial for our country that we all get out of our personal echo chambers and make an honest effort to understand each other’s point of view.

Free trade disproportionately favors international corporations

Free trade is the boogeyman of modern political discourse. As jobs in traditional blue-collar industries become scarce in developed countries, unions and other labor groups have been quick to point to free trade deals like the North America Free Trade Agreement as the culprit. This protectionist fervor has scared former Secretary of State and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton––who helped negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership––into opposing its passage, thus feeding the recent rise of populism on the international political stage.

In many cases, the opposition to free trade deals becomes hysterical, and the criticism of them may seem to fall into a repudiation of free trade itself. Basic economics says that free trade makes all participants unambiguously better off; the critics of free trade deals are often cast as ignorant of these basic principles. But modern trade treaties are extremely complex, and many of them contain provisions that reasonable people can object to without opposing free trade in general. The TPP is one of these treaties.

Environmental groups, consumer advocacy groups and health groups have joined the clamoring labor interests in opposing the TPP. Their concerns extend beyond the job losses to a clause included in most free trade agreements: the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system. This clause allows transnational corporations to sue governments for opposing their interests.

ISDS clauses are included in NAFTA and many other free trade deals to prevent member states from discriminating against foreign firms. This is certainly a reasonable thing to protect them from, but the protections offered by ISDS go much further.

To establish standing for an ISDS, a company need not have established any contracts with member states to gain standing to sue in these courts. They can sue a member state for having a regulatory framework that does not match the expectations the company had when it made the investment, and they can sue for unlimited amounts of money. In some cases, they can sue for the expected profits they would have made had their investment gone undeterred.

These protections mean that foreign firms can sue the government on grounds not available to domestic firms. An example is the Keystone XL Pipeline, which was denied a permit by the Obama administration in 2015 on the grounds that it would contribute to climate change. TransCanada—the company responsible for the pipeline—is currently suing the United States for $15 billion under an ISDS clause of NAFTA.

TPP not only contains ISDS clauses, but it actually expands them past those of many previous trade treaties. The TPP would double U.S. ISDS exposure and give more than 5,000 U.S. companies the right to sue the government for passing laws that are not in their interests. It would also allow financial firms to challenge many U.S. regulations, and pharmaceutical companies to claim cash rewards for perceived intellectual property rights violations.

Governments and large international corporations negotiate free trade deals; the concerns of less-powerful interest groups often go unheeded during these agreements. Free trade certainly has the potential to benefit everyone, but if politicians and economists want it to proceed, they have to bring the interests of people other than those in corporations and the economic elite to the table.

Mistreated sexual assault cases on campuses prevent justice

Colleges across the country have come under intense scrutiny for their mishandling of sexual assault cases to maintain their “spotless” reputations in the public eye. While some accused students do get prosecuted, they often receive lenient sentences or are not convicted at all. Before arriving to Geneseo in August, I only had a passive awareness of the danger of sexual assault on college campuses. Now, however, I am more aware of the issue due to constant news coverage of campus sexual assaults and controversies.

Many sexual assault cases from other colleges are dismissed for no viable reasons other than the college needing to protect their reputation from a scandal. For example, Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, New York cleared a group of football players of all charges after they were accused of gang raping a freshman girl in 2013. Those same football players went on to win a football conference for Hobart undefeated and were essentially immune from administrative discipline.

This happened only an hour away from Geneseo—and many people reading this article probably never heard about this incident.

Many colleges like Hobart will offer no explanation for the dropped charges. The Hobart case found physical evidence and eyewitness accounts that linked the football players to the assault. In the eyes of the college, however, reputation and winning the football conference were more important than delivering justice for a sexual assault victim.

This blatant disrespect toward victims is, unfortunately, quite common for colleges. This abuse of power, total disregard of evidence and completely emotionless attitude toward victims is not what should be considered normal in modern society. These mistreated cases are a disappointment to America’s supposed “greatness.”

Additionally, Brigham Young University in Utah set a new low for college sexual assault policy. A woman who reported a sexual assault was expelled from the school in 2014 and her case was never investigated. The college claimed the woman violated the school’s Honor Code, which prohibits “engaging in on- and off-campus activities such as drug and alcohol use, premarital sex and … going into the bedroom of someone of the opposite gender.”

These are the type of human rights violations that many victims face when they go through colleges to report sexual assault. Many college’s priorities are so skewed that they put their own reputation before the justice for and peace of mind of sexual assault survivors.

A university’s precious standings and reputation are the real reason behind their mishandling of rape cases. To them, luring more students to apply to their school matters more than expelling accused rapists. The prestige of athletic programs or alumni donations hold more sway than the safety of the students.

It is our generation that will decide how sexual assault cases will be handled in the future. All students should feel enraged about these incidents and fight to ensure sexual offenders face appropriate consequences. We want to be proud of the colleges we go to, not feel unsafe or suspicious of what incidents they may have covered up.

First debate reaffirms skepticism, concern about candidates

The first official presidential debate aired on Monday Sept. 26 from Hofstra University and was wholly indicative of voters’ frustrations, polarized viewpoints and discontent with the current state of the nation. This presidential campaign is unique because of the tenacity with which we defend or attack the candidates––both current and eliminated. The campaign trail has been littered with harsh comments, political mud-raking, Twitter fights and behavior that is unfit for anyone on the road to the White House. Our only hope was that the official start of the presidential race would somehow clean up that road.

Solidifying our skepticism, it took less than half an hour for each candidate to mention economic policies without explaining concrete plans. Republican nominee Donald Trump mentioned former United States president Ronald Reagan’s administration policies which—according to multiple studies done by the Mises Institute of Economics and The New York Times—had side effects including sparking a brief recession and massively increasing the value of the dollar.

Trump inevitably lashed out at former Secretary of State and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton about her email scandal, who formally admitted it was a mistake. Trump also challenged Clinton’s legitimacy regarding her experience and claimed to have endorsements from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement—which is not legally possible. The businessman fell right into his abrasive and factless routine, interrupting his opponent an absurd number of times.

On the Democratic side, Clinton briefly mentioned holding the wealthy financially responsible, but she never specified how she would do so besides raising their taxes. To most this may sound similar to pandering without true specifics.

Clinton also made statements regarding foreign policy, such as maintaining our sovereignty while assisting allies and increasing our domestic jobs. This is where Clinton has not entirely succeeded—her appeasements, generalizations and incredibly rehearsed phrases leave voters happy but with no definitive policy.

Overall, we should be terribly disappointed to be American voters after Monday night’s debate. It’s generally expected that these events are filled to the brim with historical allusions and terrible generalizations, but this debate was even below that regular standard.

Both candidates failed to break free of their molds. Trump didn’t last long before he started to rely on his usual aggressive statements and interruptions, and Clinton was hardly any less bureaucratic-leaning and pandering than usual.

We have nobody to blame but ourselves for allowing our elections, our elected officials and our political ideologies to become so bitter and polarized. The only assuring thing that came out of that debate was watching my peers’ overall disgust—which shows that the need for change haunts this election.

New application process reduces felony discrimination

The SUNY Board of Trustees recently made a commendably progressive and positive change to the college application process, allowing SUNY to continue advocating for individuals’ fundamental right to education. The SUNY Board of Trustees voted to eliminate the portion of the SUNY college application that questions prospective students about their criminal history.

The New York Times reported that as of July 2017, students will not have to disclose their felony status on their SUNY college applications.

The SUNY program has 64 campuses across New York State and their mission is to provide “educational services of the highest quality, with the broadest possible access, fully representative of all segments of the population in a complete range of academic, professional and vocational postsecondary programs.” This has been their goal since their establishment in 1948, and since then, the SUNY system has done their best to offer equal-opportunity affordable higher education for many New York State residents.

In the past, however, students with a criminal record were alienated because applications required information about applicants’ criminal history. The New York Times reported that, “more than 60 percent of SUNY applicants who disclosed a felony conviction did not end up completing their applications.” The fact that students felt they could no longer achieve their college dream because of a simple question on an application is disheartening and proves that these students were not granted equal opportunity during admissions.

Making certain individuals feel alienated because of their criminal history not only affects their ability to attend a university, but also influences the rest of their lives. Higher education is a staple for most career paths, as it can grant young people a second chance that is imperative for their futures.

“Higher education represents an important stepping stone toward personal and professional fulfillment,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said. This is an important milestone for the SUNY system not only on an individual level, but for society as a whole.

In general, college applications should be based on merit and academic involvement alone. In the past, students were enraged when racial, ethnic and gender-based discrimination plagued the admissions process. It is relieving that discrimination based on criminal history is being addressed just as the former was. The recent policy change for the SUNY system is instrumental in making admissions more inclusive to all students.

Those who oppose this application amendment worry that it will welcome an influx of “dangerous” individuals to SUNY schools. The SUNY Board of Trustees, however, explains that once accepted, students must disclose any felonies and undergo a screening process to gain access to certain privileges such as special academic programs, study abroad programs or on-campus living. This is a commendable compromise that allows unbiased access to basic public higher education, yet still ensures the safety of others on SUNY campuses.

The SUNY system was admirably built upon a culture of inclusion and equal opportunity; this is exactly why the recent admissions amendment is so imperative. As Geneseo students, we should be proud to be a part of a higher education system that is at the forefront of admissions equality.

The SUNY system should be commended for its recent advancements and for continuing to push boundaries to allow all New Yorkers the right to higher education.u

Factual accuracy crucial for contemporary media

As student journalists, we understand the importance of reporting factually accurate stories and correcting unintentional misprints. Typical copy editing processes edit articles multiple times, confirming claims and removing biases in order to deliver the most truthful and honest news as possible. Fact-checking is a crucial stage in this process—but even in the most widely read newspapers or journals, small details can be overlooked.

Fact-checking is even more difficult to do during live political events—once incorrect claims are made and shrouded in emotion or patriotism, it is difficult to convince people of the truth.

Fact-checking was the unexpected star of the first official debate between presidential candidates Donald Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday Sept. 26. Lester Holt—journalist and moderator for the debate—actually fact-checked candidates’ claims throughout the live event. Additionally, Clinton advertised her website’s fact-checking page during the debate in an effort to expose Trump’s claims.

Some critics curse the constant need to fact-check candidates because of their careless mistakes, which warrants some merit. In a perfect world, our political leaders wouldn’t make constant errors in speech or judgment. But it is a good thing—in the long run—to be actively skeptical about debates. We can take claims with a grain of salt and rely on fact-checking afterward.

Paying attention to fact-checking can only improve the way we understand and judge public figures. In our digital age when any rumor or lie can be taken as truth on the Internet or through popular media outlets, good, old-fashioned copy editing processes are as relevant as ever.

Even when our humble student-run newspaper dedicates time to fact-checking, the results aren’t always perfect. But when this lapse in factual accuracy happens on a wide scale—or a national one, as in the first debate—the consequences are disastrous for voters and our political process as a whole.

Hopefully, the missteps of Monday’s debate inspire voters to do research before simply believing anything they hear.

Heroin epidemic calls for legislative attention

New York State has recently seen a dramatic increase in heroin and other opioid-related overdoses. From New York City and Long Island to upstate, the epidemic has spread rapidly. In the midst of this public health issue, political leaders such as Gov. Andrew Cuomo and state police forces are giving their best efforts to keep the drugs off the streets. Even with increased attention directed at heroin abuse, the rates of overdoses, addicts and drug availability continue to rise. This issue is not one political parties can—or should—disagree on, and the epidemic is not one to be politicized. There needs to be a greater focus on combatting the heroin epidemic, and the forces responsible need to enact specific measures to address target problems.

Citing data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 10,574 reported deaths from heroin overdoses in 2014 alone. A decade ago, statistics showed that there were only approximately 2,000 heroin deaths in 2004. Numbers like these prove the drastic increase in heroin overdoses as of late.

This skyrocketing data of heroin-related deaths has prompted not only state politicians to work on the issue, but national leaders as well. After requesting $1.1 billion from Congress for a new drug treatment plan earlier this year, the Obama administration urged Congress to approve the funds. In addition, this week was declared Prescription Opioid and Heroin Epidemic Awareness Week on Monday Sept. 19.

With regard to more regional efforts, Cuomo introduced the Heroin Task Force in May in order to “build upon the state’s previous efforts and develop a comprehensive statewide plan to break the cycle of opioid addiction in New York.” Additionally, the 2016-2017 budget allocated more than $1.4 billion for drug prevention and recovery programs in the NYS Office of Alcohol and Substance Abuse Services. Even here in Geneseo, Geneseo First Responders are now taught how to administer the overdose-reversing drug Naloxone––commonly known as Narcan.

Although these efforts are admirable, the epidemic persists. Many New Yorkers wonder why rehabilitation isn’t more widely available or used—which leads to one of the biggest Achilles’ heels in helping to treat heroin addicts.

According to Rehabs.com, standard rehab centers cost anywhere between $10,000 to $20,000 a month. Luxury rehab centers, on the other hand, have the highest-rated patient care, but can cost anywhere from $20,000 to $80,000 a month. When you take into account that addicts do not receive an income during treatment and many do not have any savings or health insurance, it is clear why entering rehabilitation can be considered impossible.

We need to make rehabilitation services more readily available while improving other areas that allow heroin to become so accessible. For instance, Canada just passed legislation during the week of Sept. 11 allowing healthcare professionals to apply for access to medical heroin and to prescribe it to addicts who have been unsuccessful with other treatments.

This specific kind of medical heroin is less dangerous than the true opioid and helps addicts to focus on their treatment instead of their need for illegal drugs. Although this technique in treatment is extremely new, it does look promising and is a model that the United States should look into.

The ongoing epidemic of heroin addiction and death is present every day within our communities, whether we see the effects firsthand or not. Inner-city, suburb and even upper-middle class areas face tragic overdoses daily—which is why this terrible spread of heroin must be addressed immediately or the entire public will continue to be plagued.u

Johnson a deserving third party candidate

Most would agree that this tumultuous election season has been a disappointment for informed voters on both sides of the party lines. According to RealClearPolitics.com, nearly 55 percent of Americans view Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in a negative light, and 57.3 percent of Americans view Donald Trump the same. Ultimately, the American voter is being asked to choose the candidate they hate least. There is another option, however: former New Mexico Gov. and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. Johnson is a self-made businessman who successfully started a construction company from scratch in 1976, taking it to $38 million in annual revenue with over 1,000 employees.  Johnson also won two terms as a Republican governor in a deeply blue state in the 1990s.

After two terms, Johnson then took an unsuccessful stab at the 2012 Republican nomination as pro-choice, anti-war and a staunch supporter of limited government power. Johnson was also appointed as president and CEO of medical marijuana company Cannabis Sativa Inc. in 2014.

Johnson is a choice candidate because he has ethics and isn’t a criminal or racist—terms often used to describe the major party candidates. He also has actual executive experience. As president, Johnson plans to enact several key policies designed to balance our budget and protect our rights.

Ending the War on Drugs is a priority for Johnson. As governor, Johnson was one of the first politicians to support the legalization of marijuana. By legalizing several recreational drugs, illegal trade and distribution can end and will be regulated by the government. This can create revenue through new economic activity, which can—in turn—be taxed. In addition, our prisons would no longer burst at the seams due to unnecessary sentences for marijuana-related crimes.

Johnson also plans to decrease United States military involvement in areas of the world that do not directly affect our national safety. Too many American soldiers die on sandy battlefields far away from home—often while defending interests not common to the American people. Johnson wants to be more careful in how we wield our military might.

Another important issue is taxes. Simple and fair taxation is necessary to help reverse the trend of excessive spending and inefficient tax collection. Johnson wants to scrap our current 70,000+ pages long tax code and remove the bulk of the exemptions for big business and partisan special interest groups. No longer will savings or investment be penalized—taxation will focus on how much you consume.

Arguably the most important tenet of Johnson’s campaign are civil liberties. Johnson believes that people should have control over their own lives, free of government control or over-watch. This includes marriage, abortion and privacy rights. Johnson agrees that marriage and abortion are very personal decisions that the government should have no say in.

Johnson’s qualifications and policy positions provide a real alternative to the two corrupt candidates for the presidency. Some people are sick of having to choose between the lesser of two evils, and Johnson is a solid third-party candidate on the ballot.

Student protestors satirize Texas gun law

Students at the University of Texas protested a new gun law that took effect on Aug. 21, which allows concealed guns to be brought on their state college campuses. The protest was fairly unique in its method: students carried dildos in their bag or displayed them in gun holsters. Thousands of protesters gathered—waving their dildos in the air—in support of banning guns on campus. Protest leader and UT alumna Jessica Jin explained that they used dildos because they were fighting “absurdity with absurdity.” Students are allowed to carry weapons to class, but not sex toys—they are labeled as obscene and the student can be reprimanded.

This protest is the perfect satirical approach to the sensitive issue of gun control. I believe a college campus is the last place that guns should be carried. If I were a student at UT, I would have a serious issue paying attention in class if there was a good chance of there being a loaded firearm in the room. A student could easily grab the gun from someone’s bag and cause more––potentially life-threatening––problems for people than just infringing on that student’s Second Amendment rights.

UT junior Forrest Sullivan was one of the few in support of the new law, stating, “Firearms give women the ability to compensate for the inequality that nature has put on us. I have a fiancée that is 5 feet tall, and she is going through the process of getting her concealed carry because if a man decides to attack her, that is her only option of defense."

This blatant, sexist remark is yet another reason to ban guns on campus. This kind of viewpoint can lead women to believe that they will never be safe against men unless they have a deadly weapon to defend themselves with.

For years now, gun control issues have been endlessly debated with neither side gaining any real ground against the other. This rally was an impactful, yet mocking protest regarding the national views on gun laws. The protest also gained the support of many staff members on campus who are uncomfortable with having guns in their classroom. This endorsement only adds validity to the protest’s message, which began as a joke between friends.

The uniqueness of using a dildo as the main symbol of protest made the anti-gun rally at UT stand out from many others that could otherwise be quite similar. In fact, the protest caught the attention of “The Daily Show,” which recently featured a segment on the student rally. The absurdity that publicly waving a dildo brings has led to this protest being taken seriously, rather than being dismissed by the media as “just another” rally.

The motto of the UT anti-gun movement is “Cocks Not Glocks”—a fitting name for their witty demonstration. While vulgar, it easily draws the attention of anyone who hears it being chanted. All I need to know is: where can I sign up?

WikiLeaks threatens legitimacy of U.S. election, breaches security

The United States presidential race has tightened up once again, and it will likely stay a close race until the end. The candidates’ performance in the last few weeks of the campaign will be crucial to their success—but there is one man who may have the power to decide the whole thing for himself. Julian Assange—who is currently pent up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London avoiding criminal charges of sexual assault and rape in Sweden—is the notorious hacker and founder of the media organization WikiLeaks. Founded in 2006, WikiLeaks has since revealed massive amounts of government documents and secrets never intended for public knowledge. The organization infamously released information about the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and thousands of documents from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most recently, the organization released thousands of emails from employees of the Democratic National Committee. These emails contained evidence of collusion with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Assange claims that WikiLeaks contains even more damning emails about the Clinton campaign, something that could potentially change the course of the entire election.

This release of private information is harmful to our political society. Regardless of political affiliation, a foreign hacking organization meddling in a U.S. presidential election is a disturbing occurrence. Combine that with recent rumors that Russian hackers—possibly working for the Russian government—were behind the hacking of DNC servers and the plausibility of a tampered election becomes even more frightening.

WikiLeaks and other similar organizations do serve an important role by providing certain checks on the power of governments and corporations that often hide information from the public. In a hyper-connected world, governments have the power to monitor anyone and hide almost anything from the public’s eye. There must be major government oversight to ensure that important information is not withheld. As our government fails to conduct this rigorous oversight upon itself, WikiLeaks and other organizations help inform the public.

This oversight, however, comes at a cost. WikiLeaks is far from a perfect organization. Time after time, they release highly sensitive documents that put national security at risk with no apparent benefit to the public.

Edward Snowden—the infamous National Security Agency whistleblower currently in exile in Moscow—tweeted in July, “Democratizing information has never been more vital, and WikiLeaks has helped. But the hostility to even modest curation is a mistake.” Mass releases of information to the public with little attention paid to legitimate privacy and security concerns is a dangerous, misguided way of informing the public.

WikiLeaks seems to be causing more harm than good with its intervention in the U.S. presidential election. While organizations like it are important when exposing cases of corruption and cover-ups, they have become reckless and politically motivated in their dissemination of this information. It’s imperative that we condemn these actions from WikiLeaks in its attempts to undermine the American political system.u

Welcoming refugees reinforces fight against terrorism

The debate on Muslim immigration to Western countries often revolves around humanity versus security. Those on the left argue that we have to welcome Muslim refugees because—like other Middle Easterners—they aren’t safe in their home countries. The right side, however, counters that welcoming them inside our borders poses a threat to our national security. Just as in any debate, no one is really swayed from their original view. That’s why presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are both racing to match the majority public opinion on this—and that’s why this is such a divisive issue for our population. Putting aside these arguments, the refugee crisis has a positive side for the United States’ diplomatic alliances and national security.

In the Middle East, some nations have low levels of democracy and highly marginalized populations. Groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria capitalize on these dynamics by waiting for regime changes and political instability. These conditions allow them to appeal to the people and eventually seize power without significant resistance. Western countries are opposed to such regimes and extremist organizations, but ultimately need support to fight them.

The refugee population—those who are so opposed to our common enemies that they would leave their homes and risk safety to escape them—are the exact population that we need to appeal to in order to fight terrorism and fascist regimes in the Middle East.

Essentially, any acceptance of refugees will go a long way toward bridging the ideological gap amidst the American people. Refugees who oppose the existing regimes in the Middle East—the refugees who do not support ISIS—are the ones seeking safety in the West. They have the resources to smuggle themselves out of their countries and are open to compromise and change if it means they can live freely. These are the people we want on our side.

As strange as it may seem, it would actually be easier to control terrorist activity within the U.S. if refugees were welcomed into the country. With a focus on net cost, the most straightforward way to stop terrorism is to nurture ties with refugees. If a potential terrorist gets through security screening procedures, they are essentially entering a country where they cannot operate in the open.

In the Middle East—where these groups are currently centered—they’re more frequently able to act in the open with unlimited access to power. Allowing refugees to come to Western countries could alienate terrorists, thus stunting the growth of these organizations as a whole.

Relations between the West and the Middle East are at a crossroads. There is a group of people who do not want to live under the oppressive regimes and seek new lives in Western countries in lieu of adhering to ISIS extremism. There is tremendous potential for crossover with the West—it’s a tactical diplomatic solution to the long-standing cultural separation from the East. And we can enact this cultural peace with one simple effort: welcome the refugees.

Peer discussions needed to address street harassment

Street harassment is an unfortunate, common occurrence everywhere in our country. A woman could walk down the street wearing a bikini, full winter attire or something in between and still be vulnerable to unpredictable harassment. Although I generally feel safe in Geneseo, its inhabitants are not exempt from misogynistic and threatening behavior. I believe talking about Geneseo’s street harassment problem can help motivate us to fight back and to protect our peers. Street harassment is somewhat normalized in our society, especially by those who may not experience it. While growing up on Long Island and frequenting New York City, I can attest that a common response to street harassment is reduced to a “that’s New York for you” attitude. But because this harassment occurs in any place—not just crowded, busy cities—that kind of attitude cannot be forced upon all those who experience it.

I have experienced Geneseo street harassment in multiple forms—shouts from cars full of college students, whistles from townies in pick-up trucks and catcalls from fraternity members walking home from parties. What all these forms of harassment have in common is both pessimistic and disheartening—that there isn’t any concrete way they can be avoided or properly apprehended. Whether or not the harassment occurs is unfortunately the responsibility of the individual initiating it—and responding to such behavior can put women in danger.

Instead of wallowing in this inevitability and ignoring or sweeping this issue under the rug, we should openly talk about it.

Starting a dialogue with others who may not experience street harassment opens up opportunities to make allied connections and safer spaces within the college community. Women are not the only people who endure these toxic behaviors, and by discussing these issues with other students we can create a strong moral bond. This moral bond could motivate students to call-out or chastise their peers if they harass others—whether the harassment is intentional or not.

Being an active ally to others—especially if you have social and institutional privilege—is crucial when addressing these issues. A college student who catcalls a woman on the street most likely will not listen to her if she responds or protests, but he might listen to his friends who call him out for his rude behavior.

Small college towns often feel like societal bubbles in which we maintain our own safe, little havens from the outside world. This bubble is often burst for those who experience street harassment, racism and other forms of ignorance in Geneseo. Pretending these issues do not exist does nothing to help address them, whereas openly acknowledging them breaks the ice and starts important conversations.

On recognizing dangerous binge-drinking habits

As college students, we aren’t strangers to binge-drinking and “blackout culture.” The adoption of the 2015 Social Host Law by the Village of Geneseo and the subsequent student backlash shows how defensive students are about preserving their drinking and partying habits. In a small town like Geneseo, drinking to blackout is a popular pastime when—especially during colder months—there isn’t much else to do instead. The New York Times recently published an editorial for their On Campus column written by a college student frustrated with the drinking culture she witnessed during the start of her college career. Ashton Katherine Carrick describes party situations that are probably familiar to Geneseo students—waking up sick and unaware of what happened the night before, or taking pictures of friends passed out in the bathroom.

Carrick argues that blackout culture thrives at schools “in small towns … [with] a general lack of bars and off-campus gathering places” which allows fraternity, sorority and sports team parties to become the focal points of social nightlife.

It isn’t just a coincidence that Carrick describes Geneseo perfectly. The past closings of the In-Between, the Vital Spot and Kelly’s Saloon are believed to have influenced the severity of off-campus partying and binge-drinking in our community.

In an interview for a Dec. 10, 2015 article in The Lamron, Village of Geneseo Police Chief Eric Osganian said, “ … we’re seeing more parties than we had years ago … what we are seeing is a spike in the party as opposed to going to the bars.”

While the binge-drinking habits of Geneseo students are unlikely to drastically change in any near future, seeing the problems and dangerous situations outlined in Carrick’s article gives a reality check to those of us who consider those habits routine. By reading an outsider’s view of drinking culture, we can acknowledge how toxic and unhealthy it really is.

Many of us at The Lamron are of legal drinking age, so drinking is even more difficult to avoid in our social lives. But the only way we can fix our disturbing behavior is by changing our personal habits. We can slow down our consumption, give our bodies a rest and take responsibility for our actions. Or even in the future—when recreational marijuana is inevitably legalized in New York State—we can switch our binging habits to a less dangerous substance.

iPhone 7 design challenges familiar technology norms

Apple is facing heated resistance from the public due to the company’s recent decision to remove the headphone jack from the upcoming iPhone 7. According to Apple’s Senior Vice President of World Wide Marketing Phil Schiller, the removal of the headphone jack “really comes down to one word: courage. The courage to move on, do something new that betters all of us. And our team has tremendous courage.” While the words may be inspiring, much of the public has scorned Apple’s “courageous” decision, as its technological leap abruptly disturbs the public’s comfort with the familiarity of their smartphones and the use of the headphone jack.

In one review on the iPhone 7 announcement, online technology magazine The Verge Editor-in-Chief Nilay Patel wrote, “The traditional headphone jack is a standard for a reason—it works. It works so well that an entire ecosystem of other kinds of devices has built up around it, and millions of people have access to compatible devices at every conceivable price point.” With the removal of the headphone jack, many consumers will be torn between buying the pricey AirPods—which cost $159—or keeping their old headphones and using an adapter that plugs into the charger of the iPhone 7.

While some have accepted the fate of the new iPhone 7, an online petition was created in January––when the removal of the headphone jack was still tentative––and has received over 300,000 signatures. The petition criticizes the removal of the headphone jack, arguing that it will create “mountains of electronic waste” as people throw out their old headphones.

I would encourage anyone disappointed in the iPhone update to sign this petition. The sudden entrance of this new feature on the iPhone will lead to the disposal of a tremendous amount of electronics—such as old smartphones and headphones—before their prime. While I do promote the expansion of technological boundaries, I recognize the importance of a slow progression rather than a drastic change.

Apple and its new wireless headphones might be threatened because of how suddenly the company scrapped the headphone jack. If the change in technology were introduced gradually, consumers might have been less against the idea. Rather than taking out the headphone jack altogether so soon, Apple should allow users the option of choosing a new phone with or without this feature. This way, consumers could decide if the benefits of not having a headphone jack in the phone outweigh the cons.

While there might be no escape from a future headphone jack-free world, consumers can try to focus on the positives that come with this change. According to TechRadar, the loss of the headphone jack will supposedly lead to a “boosting [of] the quality of audio in a way that offers users a much better listening experience.”

Without the ancient headphone jack in the way, perhaps Apple will be able to improve their products with future innovations.

Lenient driving tests fail to properly educate new drivers

Driving a car is a routine part of most Americans’ daily life. According to the American Automobile Association, the average American drives about 29.2 miles per day. We drive cars so often that the act of operating a vehicle becomes muscle memory—and we become incognizant of how dangerous driving actually is. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, there were 33,804 motor-vehicle traffic-related deaths in the United States in 2013. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that 94 percent of these motor vehicle accidents were the result of human error. This is an astonishingly high number, indicating that most traffic accidents are avoidable. Drivers must be held to a higher standard in order to decrease the number of traffic accidents in the U.S.

The standards for becoming a licensed driver in New York are astoundingly low. I argue that, considering the number of accidents and injuries that occur on the road each year, New York’s low testing standards are woefully overlooked as a major public health and safety issue. As it stands, the Department of Motor Vehicle’s requirements for obtaining a driver license are relatively lax. The DMV requires applicants to be at least 16 years of age, complete one pre-licensing course, complete 50 hours of supervised driving practice and pass a road test.

On paper, these look like pretty decent requirements that would result in only well-practiced drivers obtaining their driver’s license. But considering the number of traffic accidents in the U.S. per year, these standards are evidently not high enough.

The simplest way to raise driving standards and to mitigate accidents caused by human error is to make the process by which one becomes a licensed driver more difficult.

I know from personal experience how easy it is to pass the New York state road test. I passed the road test at 16 years old in Catskill, NY, despite the fact that I probably had no business being an unsupervised driver. For example, at one point during the test—which took only about 15 minutes to complete—I asked the test administrator if I could make a right-hand turn at a red light. That every licensed driver knows all of the traffic laws involving intersections should be a given––I would argue that my not knowing this rudimentary traffic law should have disqualified me from passing the test. Yet despite not knowing one of the most fundamental traffic laws, I passed the test and received my driver’s license.

In order to raise driving standards and thereby lessen motor vehicle accidents, road tests must be more stringent and broader. A road test that lasts 15 minutes surely does not sufficiently measure the test-taker’s competency as a driver. Additionally, test-takers should be required to demonstrate via written examination their ability to handle certain situations that would otherwise be too hard to contrive in a road test scenario. These situations should include yielding to emergency vehicles, demonstrating proper technique for driving in heavy rain or snow and merging into heavy traffic.

By more thoroughly testing drivers’ ability to comply with traffic laws and to effectively operate a motor vehicle, we can ensure that bad driving habits are reduced. And breaking unsafe driving habits is necessary to ensure safety on the road.u

Supreme Court decision supports voter suppression

Former United States President Lyndon B. Johnson signed one of the most ground breaking pieces of legislation into law on Aug. 6, 1965: The Voting Rights Act of 1965. It outlawed racial discrimination at the polls, which had effectively prevented African Americans from voting in a number of southern states. The law had a significant impact—after just three years, more than half of African Americans under its jurisdiction were registered to vote. American democracy seemed to be starting to reach its full potential. The Supreme Court, however, surprisingly struck down a key VRA provision in 2013, which prevented states with a history of racial discrimination to enact voting laws without federal approval. Chief Justice John Roberts—writing for the majority opinion—defended the decision and stated, “The conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions.” He argues that because the VRA has been so successful, it no longer requires the strict enforcement it once received. This argument, however, seems self-defeating in nature.

The fact that a law has worked well for several decades should be evidence as to why it should remain intact. The VRA is a vital tool used to stamp out racial discrimination at the ballot box––this decision dangerously weakens that tool. In the wake of the court’s decision, state after state has passed new voting laws that make it increasingly difficult for people to vote.

A recent example comes from North Carolina, where in 2013 the state passed a new voter identification law that requires all voters to present some form of ID. The law also shortened early voting, ended same-day registration and eliminated a program that allowed high school students to register to vote before their 18th birthday. Republican lawmakers justified the law as a common-sense measure to prevent voter fraud in the state.

According to The New York Times, the U.S. Department of Justice found that Republican lawmakers in the state were intentionally trying to restrict African Americans’ ability to vote by using data on voting methods by race. While this legislation is most likely motivated by politics rather than racism, it is no less abhorrent and no less of a blatant offense to democracy.

It is time to stop playing politics with people’s ability to vote. Free and easy access to voting is essential to our democracy—it ensures that everyone’s voice can be heard. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to weaken the VRA, this essential freedom faces even more threats than before. It is critical that we see these new voting laws for what they really are—intentional discrimination—and pressure our politicians to end these cynical attempts to disenfranchise millions of people.u

North Korean nuclear test warrants active U.S. response

One of the international community’s largest grievances made its most significant gesture in recent months on Saturday Sept. 10. North Korea successfully constructed and then tested its most powerful nuclear weapon to date, which is a clear violation of United Nations sanctions placed on the state and a push in the wrong direction for a stable Korean peninsula. In terms of the weapon’s destructive capability, this one is unmatched. According to CNN, it is the fifth nuclear weapon North Korea has tested and had an estimated 10 kilotons of force. Connect this with the statement that North Korean officials made months ago—stating their capability to attach these weapons onto ballistic missiles—and the result is not only a pressured South Korea and Japan, but also a tense international community.

The U.N. Security Council responded with a denouncement of the test and emphasized its ongoing economic sanctions against North Korea. These sanctions include a strict ban on all natural resource exports, mandated investigations on all planes and ships leaving the country and illegalization of all sales of small arms to the authoritarian regime.

None of these sanctions are new, however, and those who are remotely concerned with the rogue state ask ourselves how effective these statements and sanctions are. It is easy to be pessimistic and even frustrated with the U.N. when their immediate response to this controversy is the statement that “this is a clear threat to international peace and security.” As an individual who does not want to live through a nuclear incident, hearing this statement each time a relentless dictator progresses war-like actions is exasperating.

The sanctions regarding trade with North Korea are as pointless as they are ineffective. The Index of Economic Freedom labels the state as a “hermit kingdom” with complete isolation from the global economy. Putting economic pressure on a state that readily pressures its own citizens and is disconnected from the global market is simply futile.

According to the 2013 CIA World Fact Book, however, North Korea’s biggest trading partner is China—the country imported 67 percent of North Korea’s exports in 2011. Simple—and vastly more effective—U.N. economic sanctions then should come between the two nations’ trade deals. The most efficient way to cripple North Korea’s state-run economy is to weaken its economic relationship with China, not to threaten nearly nonexistent relations with international trade.

Within the realms of military or humanitarian ideals, North Korea is a nightmare. The state openly threatens both the United States and our ally South Korea. Adding new economic sanctions isn’t enough to curb its threats.

The most meaningful way to deal with these aggressors is through quick, forceful responses. Perhaps not full-scale war—but if history has taught us anything, it is that appeasing aggressive leaders and waiting idly produces nothing more than escalating conflict.

On respecting academics: Major-shaming devalues student efforts

Choosing a major is one of the biggest decisions that incoming freshmen have to make in college. The process is often a source of stress for students due to the social implication that this decision is what determines a person’s future income level and job security. The idea that certain majors will unquestionably lead to a better job or a happier future is inaccurate and can be damaging to students’ confidence in a multitude of ways. According to Penn State Division of Undergraduate Studies, 50-80 percent of college students choose a major when entering college. Additionally, approximately 75 percent of those who choose a major upon arrival at college change that major throughout the course of their studies.

Many scholars have tried to understand why such an abundance of students struggle to choose the right major for them when they first enter college. One supported explanation for this is that students feel an immense amount of pressure from their parents or high school community to plan their futures early. They tend to choose certain majors that are deemed more impressive or respected by society––not necessarily the career path in which they would personally excel. This is a valid reason as to why many students change from their initial major.

Leighann Camarero’s 2013 WAMC Northeast Public Radio article “When it comes to choosing a major, college students feel the pressure,” emphasizes that, “Another factor impacting a student’s ability to choose a major that hopefully leads to a fulfilling career is the pressure to do so from society, peers and often parents.” It is extremely upsetting that young adults feel they cannot pursue their true passions in college because of society’s tendency to glorify certain careers and shame others.

Unfortunately, this unfair imposition does not end after a student’s decision to major in a certain subject. Once students commit to a course of study, many continue to experience unnecessary scrutiny. A term that has received attention from many college campus publications is “major shaming.” Major shaming refers to the way college students often make each other feel academically inadequate by insulting each other’s majors.

One reoccurring example of major shaming is students claiming that certain majors are “easier” than others. This type of allegation is completely baseless, as the difficulty of a course is relative to the student completing it. Furthermore, the need to put down others for the work they choose is unacceptable––regardless of whether someone is joking with friends or saying it to someone’s face. Many students dread being asked, “So, what are you studying?” because they fear the assumptions others will make about them based on their major.

Different majors should not be viewed as competing entities, but rather unique and separate fields of study. Creating an academic community that celebrates all majors will give students the confidence they need to pursue a career that best suits them—instead of one that society claims is most admirable.

The issue of major shaming cannot continue to be a norm of campus life; its ability to cause students to question themselves and to feel unsure about their futures can add even more stress to their undergraduate career. Every student pursuing a college degree has an equal right to be successful and to pursue a career that they love. Stepping back and realizing that it takes all kinds of majors to make up a college campus—and the American work force—is crucial to a college community.

Bayer buy-out exemplifies danger of oligopolies

Conglomerates and corporate mergers are a staple of current global capitalism across a myriad of industries. Major corporations buy out their weaker competitors and increase their control of an industry by two or threefold. While the main motivator of capitalism is the accumulation of wealth, capitalism also thrives because of increased competition between producers. As conglomerates grow and competition between industries weakens, there becomes a state of oligopoly in certain sectors of the global economy. German pharmaceutical giant Bayer recently proposed a plan to buy American agricultural supplier—and one of America’s most hated corporations—Monsanto for $66 billion. Monsanto is the world’s leading supplier of genetically-modified seeds. It controls the majority of distributed corn and soybean seeds in the United States and manufactures controversial crop pesticides.

On the other hand, Bayer has made millions in the healthcare industry with its commercialization of name-brand medicines. A goal of the merger is for Bayer to introduce itself into the profitable bio-agriculture market, leaving the corporation with its toe dipped in many different industries.

It isn’t uncommon for conglomerates to span a variety of industries—just look at the Big Six corporations who control 90 percent of American media outlets and are deeply intertwined with other sectors. But just because we know oligopolies can legally exist does not mean we should always support them.

If regulators approve the Bayer-Monsanto buy-out, farmers around the world may endure financial pressure and stress. There are already preexisting issues about the prices of Monsanto’s exclusive genetically modified seeds, and after the merger the new company will control about one quarter of global agricultural supplies. With the pressure to expand agricultural technology may come an increase in personal costs for farmworkers who are legally obligated to follow Monsanto’s business practices—or risk failing in the Monsanto-dominated agricultural market.

Major banks including Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan plan to provide billions of dollars to help finance the merger, thus rounding out the circle of America’s economic elite who will participate in and eventually benefit from this deal. It is no secret that oligopolies in capitalism benefit the few at the top often at the expense of consumers and lower employees.

While National Public Radio notes that there is a 50/50 chance the proposed plan will be approved, its conception is nonetheless reflective of the current state of global capitalism. Antitrust regulators are the crucial players that ultimately prevent powerful corporations from monopolizing the global economy.