Small Business Saturday crucial for local economies

M any Americans shop excessively the day after Thanksgiving, signifying the unofficial start of the commercial holiday season. Black Friday welcomes millions of Americans to shopping malls, discount outlets and high-end storefronts in search of seasonal sales each year.

Black Friday does not allow all types of business owners to reap the benefits of holiday-crazed shoppers, however. It is mainly large corporations who reap the profit because they can afford to offer the most enticing sales to consumers.

In an effort to promote small retailers and merchants often left in the dust of major companies during the holiday shopping season, American Express created Small Business Saturday in 2009. American Express offers free marketing materials and countless other resources to small businesses during this time in order to make sure that they gain as many benefits out of Small Business Saturday as possible.

Small Business Saturday is majorly overlooked in the shopping-heavy weekend following Thanksgiving, yet its importance is undeniable. Small businesses hope for an influx of customers during the holiday season; unlike larger corporations, the small businesses solely depend on the community they are located in for support.

Making a conscious decision to “shop small” during the holiday season is an effort that should be made by all consumers. Purchases mean much more—both emotionally and financially—to small business owners, as opposed to large corporations.

Forbes contributor Nicole Leinbach-Reyhle in 2015 referred to Small Business Saturday as “one of the most important shopping days of the year.” She went on to cite the increase in success for the relatively new tradition, with 2014 figures indicating that  “88 million consumers shopped small on Small Business Saturday, up 14.9 percent from 2013, spending $14.3 billion at local and independent businesses.”

Although Small Business Saturday has gained popularity over the years, it is still necessary for more people to get involved and to shop small––not only on this designated date, but throughout the rest of the holiday season and year.

In Livingston County, it is imperative that Geneseo students and faculty support local businesses. Small businesses help to make our communities special, and here in Geneseo, they create a unique and beloved atmosphere for college students and residents alike.

In addition to getting some great holiday gifts in Livingston County, there are also countless other benefits to shopping small. According to the Small Business Administration, big businesses have eliminated 4 million jobs since 1990, while small businesses added 8 million. This is not only important on a national scale; it reminds those of us living in Livingston County of how many local businesses provide invaluable employment for Geneseo students and residents. Essentially, the success of small businesses in Livingston County directly correlates to the way our campus operates and how our student life prospers.

There are a multitude of cultural, economic and ethical reasons why shopping small is important. Small Business Saturday is a necessary reminder of them, as we must be mindful of how our decisions as consumers are meaningful.

Even though Small Business Saturday has passed, I urge everyone to continue to support local businesses not only during this holiday season, but year-round, too.

Division over Castro death reflects nuance of his politics

The death of former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro on Friday Nov. 25 is yielding polarized reactions from international communities and political leaders. A leader of the 1959 Cuban Revolution, Castro died from natural causes at age 90. A drastically divided reaction comes from both supporters and critics of the political leader; Cuban citizens have expressed grief during a nine-day period of mourning in Havana and across the country, while “in the Little Havana neighborhood of Miami, home to Cuban exiles, revelers partied all day,” according to CNN. His decades-long communist regime caused both growth and decline on the Caribbean island.

As a socialist, Castro passed progressive legislation that benefited minority groups. Castro believed that, “the emancipation of women was intrinsically tied to the socialist revolution,” according to Latin American television network TeleSur. Castro’s regime denounced gender and racial discrimination, sentencing offenders up to two years in prison for infractions. Additionally, the regime installed universal health care, legalized abortion eight years before the United States and stressed the importance of paid maternal leave for working mothers.

Castro, however, was a flawed individual and contributed to the political oppression of many Cubans. Freedom of speech was suppressed and many activists, journalists and critics were imprisoned and censored. Cuba became—and is arguably still organized as—a police state that surveilled its citizens and violently repressed its opponents. Even his own administration faced execution if deemed necessary, according to New York Post.

No one nation can define its history in straightforward and simple terms. The U.S.—currently experiencing a legitimation crisis on part of its bipartisan political system—has a complicated and often shameful history both domestically and internationally. All political administrations will experience strife––and unfortunately––a dangerous changing-of-hands.

A mixed reaction to Castro’s death is both understandable and appropriate for his nuanced existence. Politics are neither black nor white, and we can acknowledge the positive aspects of Castro’s regime while severely condemning the negative ones.

Those who experienced and witnessed his transgressions—and his accomplishments—firsthand best define Castro’s history within Cuba. There are both groups of Cubans celebrating his death and mourning him; this divided reaction perfectly reflects the complexity of Castro’s presence and influence on Cuba, on the communist movement and on U.S. history.

Editorial inconsistent, lazy critique of socialism

The Lamron Nov. 4 editorial “Socialist party supports radical, unrealistic campaign platform” is filled with so much anti-communist boilerplate and distortions that it is difficult to know where to begin. The editorial claims that the Socialist Equality Party—of which the Geneseo chapter of International Youth and Students for Social Equality is its youth organization—has a “radical” program.

On this charge, at least, the editorial is correct—the SEP and IYSSE call for an end to the United States war drive and the restructuring of the economy based on human need instead of private profit. This program is “radical” in the sense that none of the politicians within the confines of the “official” political spectrum—from President-elect Donald Trump to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders—even claim to desire it.

“Contrary to the American dream and economically illiterate, socialism is fundamentally wrong,” according to The Lamron editorial. Beyond claiming that a political philosophy is “wrong,” the writer ignores the many socialist economists who were certainly not “economically illiterate,” including Karl Marx, Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg and Yevgeni Preobrazhensky.

The editorial also claims that the socialist program is “unrealistic,” but its defense of the “American dream” is unhinged. Even as labor productivity has increased, median wages have stagnated. “America’s 20 wealthiest people—a group that could fit comfortably in one single Gulfstream G650 luxury jet—now own more wealth than the bottom half of the American population combined, a total of 152 million people in 57 million households,” according to the Institute for Policy Studies.

The editorial declares, “The economies of capitalist countries tend to perform far better than their socialist counterparts,” defining these “socialist” countries as East Germany, Venezuela, Cuba and the Soviet Union. What it does not mention is that Niles Niemuth—the SEP’s vice presidential candidate and the featured speaker at a Geneseo IYSSE meeting—made clear that these were not socialist countries, despite Niemuth being part of the focus of the editorial.

Niemuth specifically advocated for Leon Trotsky’s opposition to the Stalinist degeneration of the Soviet Union. Trotsky argued that the Stalinist bureaucracy had to be overthrown by the Soviet working class and had to institute genuine, democratic planning for socialist development to occur.

The editorial, in bad faith, said nothing of this analysis—despite the fact that it was a key part of the question and answer session. Had the editorial been written in good faith, it would have attempted to refute this analysis.

The editorial also does not mention that Niemuth specified that Venezuela and Cuba are led by bourgeois-nationalist governments, which came up after a question was asked about “socialist countries like Denmark [sic]” primarily exporting “bread lines.”

I must also note the unbecoming vitriol of the editorial in question. It contributes nothing to the level of discourse and simply attacks a political program through ad hominem. Past Lamron articles discussing Trump’s fascistic candidacy and the possible effects of his administration have used more professional language.

The anti-communist pieces published in The Lamron in 2016 have been below the standards of journalism I have hoped for from our school newspaper.

As we head into four years of a Trump administration, people are going to be looking for answers, and some will look to the socialist movement. I welcome discussion on the program of the SEP and IYSSE, but I ask that The Lamron hold its columnists to a higher standard.

Clarification: November 29, 2016

This article features the sentence, "Trotsky argued that the Stalinist bureaucracy had to be overthrown by the Soviet working class and had to institute genuine, democratic planning for socialist development to occur." The sentence should read: "Trotsky argued that the Stalinist bureaucracy had to be overthrown by the Soviet working class and that genuine democratic planning be instituted for socialist development to occur." 

This article states, "The editorial claims that the Socialist Equality Party—of which the Geneseo chapter of International Youth and Students for Social Equality is its youth organization—has a “radical” program." It is to be clarified that Geneseo is not the whole of the Socialist Equality Party's youth organization. 

Trump election empassions European right-wing groups

W hile the 2016 presidential election results have certainly generated mixed emotions, social divisions and protests within the United States, one must not forget to consider the reaction from the international community. Perhaps an even more pressing issue is how our election directly impacts international politics.

Both moderate and extremist right-wing movements have been growing in Europe. Politicians have successfully obtained office through these populist movements, capitalizing on widespread frustration with large immigration increases, increased globalization, economic failures of the European Union and a feeling of disconnect from their government. With the poll-defying successful campaign of President-elect Donald Trump, the right-wing populist movements have surged and rallied in Europe. Trump will now have the chance to validate past efforts of right-wing populism in Europe.

France’s National Front leader Marine Le Pen praised Trump and the right-wing movements on Twitter after the U.S. election, tweeting, “A new world is emerging, the global balance of power is being redefined because of Trump’s election.”

Le Pen’s right wing National Front is expected to perform well in the coming 2017 French presidential election. The negative effects of this movement are already present in France. Since the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attacks, reported hate crimes against Muslims have tripled, according to France’s National Human Rights Commission. In 2015 alone, more than 400 assaults, incidents of harassment and criminal damage against the Islamic community were reported.

The infamous “burkini ban” in 30 French towns—though overturned in the court system—was another form of discrimination faced by the French-Muslim population. When Trump was elected—and if some of his stated measures are performed, such as a ban on Muslim immigration to the U.S.—our nation was and will be validating not only domestic Islamophobia, but Islamophobia abroad, as well.

Le Pen’s movement in France is paralleled in the Netherlands through the Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders, who tweeted on Nov. 9, “We will make the Netherlands great again. I will give the Netherlands back to the Dutch.” This ideal was legally solidified in neighboring Denmark after their government passed a bill in Jan. 2016, which stated any capital exceeding $1,450 would be seized from refugees. If we try to identify the source of this legislation, we find again a right-wing populist party: the Danish People’s Party.

A third example can be found in England. Metropolitan Police statistics reported a 70 percent increase in hate crimes against Muslims in London in 2015. Moreover, from 2010-2014, the number of Muslims who claimed British government policies discriminated against them rose from 34 percent to 59 percent, according to the Islamic Human Rights Commission.

Specifically in Europe, many anti-immigration sentiments are present within these groups. Of course, “Brexit” comes to mind when one thinks of European right-wing politics––many have even likened the event to the American election.

Often, political leaders who head these groups support the statements, “Britain for Brits or France for the French.” In addition, Muslim refugees are often targeted in policies that state people cannot display obvious religious symbols.

While all the stated effects of governments under right-wing control are somewhat hypothetical, it is important to note the existence of growing anti-Islam rhetoric, anti-globalization practices and successful office-grabbing taking place.

Though the election results have certainly caused social and political strife here in the U.S., it is of great importance that we remember that we are being watched. Our allies are working with paralleled right-wing movements and they, too, will observe how the Trump administration behaves. The ways in which we accept or deny developments in our country certainly have an impact on counterparts in Europe.

Criminal court membership crucial for international justice

The recent move by three African countries to leave the International Criminal Court is unfortunate and shows a lack of priority in matters relating to international justice and human rights protection. In a matter of weeks, Burundi, South Africa and The Gambia announced their solid intentions to leave the ICC on grounds that it only targets weaker African countries and their leaders. The unprecedented attempt comes amid accusations of partiality and increased questioning of the ICC’s legitimacy as a supranational institution. With 124 member countries—34 of whom are African—the ICC was established as a permanent court in charge of judging war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide that member countries are either unable to or refuse to prosecute themselves.

Currently, the most substantial justification for leaving the ICC is that since its official 2002 formation, only African nationals have been indicted on charges. Furthermore, of the 10 current cases under investigation, nine involve African countries, according to The Guardian. 

Critics who point to this seemingly judicial anomaly fail to simultaneously recognize that the ICC does have preliminary investigations in Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. Furthermore, the ICC can only prosecute cases from countries that have ratified the court. While there is legitimate criticism against the court, the actions of these three countries are highly calculated and influenced by hidden political agendas.

Given the history of African leaders’ blatant disregard for the rule of law, it is not a farfetched conclusion to say that the decision to leave the ICC is linked to the desire to more easily oppress citizens by undermining democratic provisions. South African bishop and Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu’s reaction sums it all up: “African leaders behind the move to leave ICC are effectively seeking license to kill, maim and oppress their people without consequences.”

As one of the first countries to ratify the ICC, South Africa’s decision to withdraw is contradictory to the country’s preexisting symbolism of justice in international criminal matters. South Africa’s decision comes after it was criticized for failing to arrest Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir during his visit to the country in June 2015.

Al-Bashir is wanted for war crimes and genocide in the Darfur region and is significant for being the first sitting head of state to have an arrest warrant by the ICC. South Africa justified its retreat, stating that membership in the ICC conflicts with its commitment to “diplomatic immunity.”

This justification is not satisfactory. As a prominent African country, South Africa ought to set an example of refusing to nurture a culture of impunity by fulfilling its responsibilities and obligations as an ICC member. This way, it can help deter undemocratic government actions and reaffirm that no one is above the law, regardless of his or her political position.

As for Gambia, the nation defended its move by essentially accusing the ICC of being a new agent of colonialism and a racist body used to persecute and humiliate non-whites. Allegations of neocolonialism against the ICC are difficult to prove because first, the court’s formation was highly supported by many African countries that wanted to end impunity and to enforce rule of law within their borders.

Second, Africans—not outsiders—bring the majority of cases forward to the ICC. Third, African nationals hold a good number of key positions such as president of the assembly of member states, prosecutors and various judges within the ICC.

Burundi, South Africa and The Gambia should reconsider their decision to leave the ICC, which has consequences beyond their borders. Not only is this decision a threat to justice, but it also risks causing a domino effect in other countries, which might lead to democratic backsliding.

Deserting the ICC is not a solution. Dissatisfied countries must work within this institutional framework to restructure it and to create a more universal system of justice. This will be difficult given that powerful countries such as the United States, China and Russia have yet to ratify ICC membership. I believe that making the ICC more universal will help establish a broader horizon for justice.

Social media censors reality of U.S. politics

The results of the 2016 United States presidential election shocked many Americans. Every major news outlet—including Fox News—wrongly predicted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s victory. The New York Times reported that President-elect Donald Trump himself was even surprised by his victory. Many have blamed this shock on an increasingly entrenched feature of modern life: the sealed-off nature of our online interactions and the media we consume. While the causes of this problem—frequently referred to as the “echo-chamber” or the “liberal [or conservative] bubble”—are complex and varied, the biggest culprit is Facebook, and that company bears a responsibility to address it.

There was considerable discussion within Facebook about whether or not the company had affected the outcome of the election, according to The New York Times. Several high-level executives voiced concerns, but Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg argued on Thursday Nov. 10 that the claim that Facebook influenced the outcome of the election was “a pretty crazy idea.”

The company boasts a membership of 200 million Americans, with a 2016 Pew Research Center Survey indicating 44 percent of American adults get their news from the social media website. Those numbers make Facebook the biggest media company in the U.S.

Thus far, the site has been reluctant to step into that role. In a Saturday Nov. 12 Facebook post, Zuckerberg wrote, “I believe we must be extremely cautious about becoming arbiters of truth ourselves.” This sentiment’s idealism is admirable, but deeply problematic. When so many Americans are using its product as a news source, Facebook does not have the luxury of pretending not to influence the opinions and quality of information absorbed by the American people.

Facebook could have influenced the election in several ways, but the most important is by locking people into fixed political perspectives. It is far too easy to drown people you disagree with on the platform—two clicks and the person will never appear in your news feed again.

Facebook presents itself as a marketplace of ideas, but a more apt analogy for the way most Americans use Facebook would be that it is an intellectual IMAX theater. It is a place you can enter and select what version of reality you’d like to experience, and then sit back and let others deliver it to you—whatever their agenda.

Facebook must change this situation in order to be consistent with its own values. When the election of Peter Thiel—the prominent Silicon Valley Trump supporter—to the Facebook board was criticized, Zuckerberg defended him and said, “We care deeply about diversity.” Truly caring about diversity would likely not entail allowing millions of people to lock themselves into hermetically sealed echo chambers of opinion.

The degree to which the material users read on Facebook changes their opinions is questionable. But this may be slightly beside the point: most people in the country were surprised by the election’s outcome, and a popped liberal bubble might have spared them the shock. Social media claims to make people more connected, yet in this instance we were systematically ignorant of the views of millions of our compatriots.

Exposing Facebook users to a greater diversity of opinion would not necessarily change their minds, but it might make them more open to doing so. Reading the same point of view over and over again creates the impression that everyone agrees with it, making people on both sides more likely to close their ears and to dig their heels in when they are confronted with opposing points of view.

Social media not only allowed Trump to reach millions of voters without virtually any campaign budget—it also allowed both candidates to make themselves and each other more vehemently unpopular than any other candidates in history. Facebook shares a significant part in this unprecedented public response.

Newly elected women signify progressive future

The 2016 United States presidential election has left many Americans discouraged and uncertain about the future of our country.

Leading up to the election, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was anticipated to hold office and to become our first female president. Although Clinton was not elected, the public perception of the election’s results has been wrongly focused on the magnitude of her loss, instead of the victories of other inspirational women who were elected to political positions.

We cannot allow our disappointment in the presidential election to consume our vision of democracy and taint the way we perceive the progress of women in politics. Although Americans will not see Clinton as our champion in the Oval Office in the upcoming four years, we can look to other places in our government in order to find women who will represent women in politics.

While arguably warranted, the cynicism surrounding the 2016 election has consequently overshadowed monumental political victories that have occurred. Many women and minorities were elected to the House of Representatives and the Senate, showcasing that America’s democracy is capable of prevailing and denouncing the lack of diversity it was once defined by.

Catherine Cortez Masto was elected as the first Latina senator and Tammy Duckworth as the second Asian-American, the first Thai-American and the first female decorate war veteran to serve as a senator.

Furthermore, Kamala Harrish is the first Indian-American senator and Pramila Jayapal is the first Indian-American woman to be elected to the House. Stephanie Murphy is the first Vietnamese-American woman to be elected to Congress, Kate Brown is the first openly LGBTQ+ governor and Ilhan Omar was elected as the first Somali-American Muslim female legislator.

Due to these specific women’s perseverance and their refusal to abide by traditional political and societal demographics, many young girls and minorities can now look to the Senate and the House to see strong, female politicians who represent them. This is especially important considering the current political climate fostering aggressive sexism.

It is essential that we, as a country, re-direct our pessimism following the results of the election. Instead, the country should focus its energy on celebrating the elected women who have made significant progressive strides in breaking the political glass ceiling. In a time when so many Americans are worried for their futures, all we can do is look into the ways that we have progressed and the ways that we can continue to do so.

A century ago, women didn’t have the right to vote. As a woman in 2016, I look to our government to see how far our country has come in terms of gender equality. Although there are countless more reforms that still need to be achieved and there are indisputable struggles ahead for our nation, taking the time to celebrate the positive aspects of the 2016 election is imperative.

New York State should reform solitary confinement laws

Solitary confinement is an unfortunately common method of punishment in the United States’ prison system. Such a form of punishment is particularly harsh in New York State due to the lack of legislation dictating how long someone can be held in solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is unequally distributed among the prison population and often leads inmates to experience detrimental psychological effects. Reforming solitary confinement in New York will help reduce inequality in prisons and improve prisoners’ mental health.

Individuals in solitary confinement spend 22-24 hours each day locked in a cell the size of an elevator, either alone or with another person, according to the New York Campaign for Alternatives to Isolated Confinement. Those held in solitary confinement are typically allowed one or two hours of exercise alone and are not allowed to participate in prison programs, receive therapy treatment or have phone privileges.

Prisons often disguise the practice of solitary confinement by using different terms to describe the same practice, such as segregation or restrictive housing. Prisons that implement solitary confinement do so disproportionately among inmates.

Inmates with untreated mental diseases, inmates who are Muslim or those who have reported rape or abuse by prison officials are often held in solitary confinement. Transgender individuals are also placed in isolated confinement for their own protection to deter harassment in prisons

Such a practice, however, can result in a severe psychological toll on an already vulnerable group of individuals. Transgender advocates explain that putting someone in solitary confinement can cause increased risks of suicide or self-harm among transgender inmates.

In addition, placing transgender inmates in isolated confinement could increase the cases of sexual assault. Nearly half––49 percent—of the sexual misconduct cases reported in prisons are initiated by staff members, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2009-2011 study. An increased surveillance of inmates by the very individuals likely to commit sexual harassment or assault is not beneficial or safe for transgender inmates.

Isolated confinement can also cause severe psychological damage, largely due to a lack of human interaction. Such notable effects of remaining in solitary confinement include hallucinations, panic attacks, paranoia, violent fantasies and increased rates of suicide.

NYCAIC noted that from 2014-15, 40 percent of suicides in NYS occurred in solitary; however, only 9 percent of individuals in prison are housed in solitary confinement. These extreme psychological ramifications poignantly demonstrate why this practice in prisons should be reformed immediately.

In order to make such reforms, NYS should adopt the standards created in 2010 by the American Bar Association, which describe specific methods of reform related to solitary confinement. Such reforms include evaluating which prisoners are placed in isolated confinement, restricting how long someone can be held in isolated confinement and monitoring inmates in order to prevent detrimental mental health effects from occurring.

In order to implement such a change, students need to become better versed in this issue. After tabling in the MacVittie College Union and speaking with students about the conditions of solitary confinement for a class on mass incarceration—HONR 207, The Morality and Politics of Mass Incarceration in the Black Lives Matter/Orange is the New Black Moment—my group and I found that most students were unaware of the terrible conditions and effects that inmates in solitary confinement suffer.

I urge the Geneseo student body to conduct research about this issue and to try to implement change in NYS to reform the conditions of solitary confinement. Whether such a change comes from signing a petition demanding that Gov. Cuomo change state laws, volunteering for organizations such as the ABA or becoming more involved in local politics, any step will help raise more awareness about this issue.

Every individual has the right to be treated equally and to live in an environment with conditions that promote positive physical and mental health—including prisoners—and students have the responsibility to advocate for these affected inmates who lack a voice in our government.

Trump appoints dangerously problematic cabinet members

The confusing and stressful aftermath of President-elect Donald Trump’s victory on Nov. 8 had some Americans hoping the businessman will serve as a more liberal president than initially expected. With the appointment of problematic and controversial politicians to cabinet, however, Trump has proved that he can be a large threat to democracy and human rights once he occupies the Oval Office. The Tuesday Nov. 15 staff editorial for The New York Times explains the situation perfectly: “Anyone holding out hope that Donald Trump would govern as a uniter—that the racism, sexism, anti-Semitism and nativism of his campaign were just poses to pick up votes—should think again.”

The most significant issue with Trump’s first moves within his cabinet is his appointment of Stephen Bannon as the chief White House strategist and senior counselor.

Bannon—former executive chairman of the network that owns inflammatory conservative website Breitbart News—was endorsed for the position by both the current chairman of the American Nazi Party and a former Ku Klux Klan imperial wizard.

Bannon openly supports the dangerous ideology of the “alt-right,” described by The New York Times as a “group of mostly young men who believe in white supremacy; oppose immigration, feminism and multiculturalism; and delight in harassing Jews, Muslims and other vulnerable groups by spewing shocking insults on social media.” A few of Bannon’s former colleagues also denounced him as “nasty” and “terrifying.”

Other potential candidates for cabinet positions are not promising either. Myron Ebell—a prominent climate change skeptic—is being considered for Environmental Protection Agency Administrator and Joe Arpaio—controversial sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona who is accused of rampant racial profiling and inhumane treatment of inmates—is being considered for Homeland Security Secretary.

There is no question that the behind-the-scenes positions in the White House could have more power and be more dangerous than Trump as an individual. Paired with a majority Republican Congress, our government is more conservative than it has been in decades. The next four years will be a test of how far away our country can drift from hopeful progressivism and positive change.

CoverGirl inspires beauty industry to consider model representation

Popular cosmetic brand CoverGirl is commendably encouraging the makeup industry to embrace diversity in their advertising campaigns. This change in perspective has been in high demand and the fact that societal norms of conventional beauty are finally being questioned is a huge victory. The makeup industry continuously lacks variety in the brand ambassadors that represent their products. A study by design firm Canva––reported by Refinery29––claims that when viewing makeup advertisements, consumers will see a “slew of almost-identical portraits that display similar hair colors, skin tones, and even facial structures.” Most of those portraits are that of white, celebrity women.

Although many may argue that this issue is not important, the lack of equal representation in the makeup industry has widespread effects.

Having only white, affluent women represent makeup brands can lead many young people to suffer from self-esteem issues. The models currently used by many brands create an unattainable level of perfection due to their celebrity status. Furthermore, there is a massive misrepresentation of consumers; people buying the products are highly diverse in age, race, economic status and gender.

Recently, however, the makeup industry has been making changes. “Instead of prescribing a one-look-fits-all approach, our favorite companies are reconsidering what it means to be truly inclusive in the beauty space,” Teen Vogue writer Sarah Wu said.

CoverGirl has effectively modified their brand’s advertising in hopes to change the way mainstream cosmetic companies are perceived. Their advertisements—and the models in them—are becoming increasingly representative of different groups of people.

For instance, the brand recently introduced their “So Lashy” mascara as part of a new “#LashEquality” campaign, which features a variety of brand ambassadors that differ from the usual white, conventionally attractive representatives. The hashtag “#LashEquality” is also being used to encourage the appreciation for all types of unconventional beauty within the industry.

The brand ambassadors for this specific campaign include celebrities such as Sofia Vergara and Katy Perry, but also some progressive additions. Arguably the most notable of these is 17-year-old high school senior and YouTube makeup artist James Charles.

The New York Times commented on the decision to utilize a male ambassador. “The selection of Mr. James by CoverGirl comes amid a broader questioning of traditional gender boundaries in fashion and beauty,” New York Times writer Valeriya Safronova said.

The makeup industry has previously ignored their male following and typically focused marketing on a female-only audience, therefore creating an unwelcoming environment for makeup-loving men within society. As a CoverGirl, Charles will now be a role model for males everywhere.

Another commendable addition to the CoverGirl ambassador team is Muslim beauty blogger Nura Afia. Afia said that she used to believe her hijab would hold her back because she rarely saw herself represented in advertisements, according to CNN. With her new role, however, Afia is optimistic about the positive effects that her representation as a minority will have.

“It means that little girls that grew up like me have something to look up to,” she said.

The inclusion of both Charles and Afia in the CoverGirl brand is an incredible step forward in the beauty industry. The publicity surrounding these models will allow many consumers to find worthy role models and to redefine their standards for beauty.

Other cosmetic brands should follow CoverGirl’s lead and continue to foster inclusion by showcasing a variety of models. In general, the industry has been corrupt for so long, profiting off the insecurities of individuals in creating unachievable beauty standards—this needs to come to an end.

With CoverGirl’s efforts, we can only hope that, one day, every young boy and girl can look up at a cosmetic billboard or makeup advertisement to see someone that represents them personally.

What does America do now? Post-election anxiety can inspire social change

When lame duck president Barack Obama was elected in 2008, most current college-aged students were only in middle school. The 2016 presidential election is the first that many are eligible to vote in—and is arguably one of the most controversial and unprecedented elections in recent history—so emotions are running high in response to the results. Voters who are not just disappointed, but also sad and frightened by the election of Donald Trump should express their heavy emotions in a productive way. For the numerous groups of people Trump alienated during his campaign—such as people of color, immigrants, women and the LGBTQ+ community—the wake of Election Day brings the promise of organized solidarity and change.

Many marginalized and disenfranchised people who are personally affected by Trump’s insults and proposed policies flooded social media with posts expressing their anxiety and recent experiences of violent discrimination. One Rochester resident reported that a gay pride flag displayed in front of their house was set on fire and destroyed, and former Geneseo student and New York City resident John Rodney Turner reported that he was publicly harassed and called racial slurs by a Trump supporter in Times Square.

The one productive takeaway from the election results is how the cultural racism, misogyny and general ignorance permeating many areas of America have been brought to the undeniable surface. Because people who are privileged often ignore or choose not to believe in the existence of institutional prejudices and discrimination, this very public acknowledgement of Trump’s threat to marginalized people cannot be easily thrown away.

I believe that those who are fearful for their safety in the face of this horrifying outburst of collective ignorance deserve to take some time to rest and exercise self-care. Whether that means spending time with friends and loved ones or skipping class to get extra sleep, we should understand that facing fear and discrimination on a regular basis has a legitimate mental and emotional toll on individuals.

It is no doubt that organization and collective action efforts are crucial in these next 70 days before Trump’s inauguration. After taking a breath and collecting thoughts, young anti-Trump activists will be more inspired than ever to take ahold of and influence the future of the country.

The motivation of young people—the same motivation that brought Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to a once-promising candidate position—is crucial for organizing action against a dangerous and toxic president-elect. Starting as early as Wednesday Nov. 9, protests formed in Boston, Chicago, Seattle, NYC and other cities across the country, according to The New York Times. College campuses in Massachusetts, California and Pennsylvania hosted demonstrations as well.

The success of grassroots collective action is not always definite or predictable. As long as existing societal and governmental institutions threaten the livelihood and rights of marginalized American citizens, however, there will exist the inspiration of individuals to take metaphorical arms against injustice.

For now, we air our uncensored grievances on social media and begin the early stages of creating social change.

Congressional elections crucial for future of marijuana policies

Congressional elections are arguably more important than the presidential election this year. With a total of 469 seats in the United States Congress available to change party power, it marks an incredibly powerful political moment. This election could mean a retaking of Congress for the Democratic party or it could continue to hold with a Republican majority. Despite the intense focus on the president, many issues important to Americans fall in the hands of Congress. If voters wish for their elected officials to represent them on current issues, more emphasis needs to be on the Congressional elections. One issue that remains of high priority in many Americans’ eyes––especially among young voters like us––is the legalization of marijuana and the national end to the War on Drugs.

While medical marijuana is currently legal in 25 states, only a few have successfully made recreational use of marijuana legal. Colorado, Alaska, Oregon and Washington have made the jump to legalize recreational marijuana use and are under continuous scrutiny from other state governments. Voters in California, Massachusetts and Nevada, however, have also decided that recreational marijuana use should be legal. The official results for both Maine and Arizona have yet to come in, too.

Colorado has shown voters the economic benefits of opening up to this new industry as the state created more than 18,000 full-time jobs and generated nearly $2.4 billion in revenue, according to the Marijuana Policy Group. MPG also noted that Colorado’s second-largest excise revenue source was cannabis sales at $121 million—raising more than three times the amount than alcohol tax revenue.

Today, these findings greatly impacted the decisions of voters in California, Massachusetts, Maine, Arizona and Nevada, who had the legalization of recreational use on their ballots on Nov. 8. All of these states have regulations if the drug becomes legal—only those 21 years or older can purchase a certain amount at once. In addition, some states have legal boundaries between purchases and schools and, of course, an excise tax on the drug. This begs us to ask how other states are moving toward or against legalization.

The bottom line is that states must move slowly on the issue. The Drug Policy Alliance states, “Marijuana should be removed from the criminal justice system and regulated like tobacco and alcohol,” yet they are met with little support from government agencies. Marijuana has been federally illegalized since 1937, largely due to the efforts of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst and Federal Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry J. Anslinger, who were propelled by personal, racial and economic motivations.

Essentially, the pair saw marijuana as an economic threat, as did the Dupont industry—the patent owners of nylon—and all three made it their effort to illegalize this perceived threat.

Unfortunately for American voters today, this illegalization has remained for decades, despite numerous studies that show that this illegalization and the “War on Drugs” is nothing but a costly, fear-inducing failure.

Gallup Polls released an August poll that showed that the number of adults who smoked marijuana has almost doubled in the past three years. In addition, the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use showed that marijuana is the number one used illicit drug.

The power to shape the future of marijuana in this nation remains in the hands of voters. This election cycle can be pivotal for progressing the legalization of marijuana and moving it toward reasonable regulation or legalization.

With the power of the voters, maybe the failed War on Drugs can finally come to a close.

Trump election threatens progressive legislation, policy

Shocking election results have installed Donald Trump as the President-elect of the United States. Republicans earned control of the Senate and the House and will most likely appoint a staunchly conservative Supreme Court Justice. The last time a party had such complete control over the U.S. government was World War II, and it led to a redefinition of the role of government in the New Deal. The last time the Republican Party held this level of power was 1928—and the Great Depression started the next year.

Minorities will be hit hard by this change of power in the White House. Stock in Corrections Corporation of America rose by 47 percent in the first 12 hours of the news, indicating that the market clearly thinks America’s engorged and disproportionately minority-ridden penal system is here to stay.

Women have plenty to worry about as well—conservative media outlets have already begun trumpeting the end of Planned Parenthood funding. Furthermore, a repeal of the Affordable Care Act would end the requirement that insurance companies provide birth control without a copayment.

The concerns of women, people of color, immigrants and the LGBTQ+ community are valid, but two considerations are even more pressing. First, there exists the threat of catastrophic war our nation faces from a president so petulant his aides barred him from Twitter in the final days of the election. We can only hope that Vice President-elect Mike Pence—who at least seems to understand America’s relationship with Russia—takes the lead on foreign policy, leaving him little time for domestic policy.

The second tragedy is also calamitous in scale: at every level of government, a party that rejects and mocks the science of climate change now controls the U.S. Trump has promised to exit the Paris agreement, revoke the Clean Power Plan and scrap the Environmental Protection Agency.

All the major progress the U.S. has made against climate change—meaning a large portion of the entire world’s progress—will probably be erased.

The left cannot blame its failures for these looming disasters. Nearly 60 million people voted for Trump, and whatever happens next is what they chose for this country. As much as 100 million people eligible did not register to vote in this election, and that too was a conscious choice. Trump did not win the votes of the majority of Americans or even the majority of Americans who voted, but enough people in enough places supported him for him to win the Electoral College.

One group that cannot entirely escape responsibility, though, is the media. Not having raised enough money to pay for traditional ads or outreach, Trump relied on Twitter and $2 billion of free media advertising to promote his message. Additionally, studies have repeatedly shown that less than 10 percent of the total election coverage focused on policy issues, and it wasn’t until the past few months that journalists began giving critical takes on Trump’s proposals.

While the media can amplify and offset our beliefs and fixations, they are ultimately a reflection of them. The media focused on the sensational and scandalous because our culture uses politics to entertain itself. This should not be the case. Politics are serious––and arguably––are often boring.

Perhaps if we treated it this way, however, we wouldn’t have a reality television star as our president-elect today.

Greek Tree vandalism violates freedom of speech

T he Geneseo College Republicans recently painted the Greek Tree in Sturges Quad, a famed Geneseo tradition often used to advertise campus organizations.

They painted the letters “GOP” and a checked box next to former Republican presidential candidate John Kasich’s name, signaling their dissatisfaction with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump as the head of their party’s ticket.

The paint had barely dried, however, before someone subsequently spray painted over the tree the next night—not to advertise their organization, but instead to simply tarnish the former group’s work. The tree was covered in black spray paint and some crudely drawn faces. Not only is this immature behavior, but it is also damaging to our campus environment—an environment that should be promoting freedom of speech and thought.

I am not a Republican, but I am horrified and dismayed at the candidacy of Trump and the Republican Party’s complacency in letting him take control of their party. The GCR, however, have not endorsed Trump and are equally as appalled at his candidacy, as they expressed in their Thursday Nov. 3 Lamron article “Clinton, Trump both unworthy candidates for endorsement.”

Free speech is a right that must be protected, whether or not someone disagrees with it. The GCR are an on-campus organization that has a right to advertise their organization on the Greek Tree.

Some may argue that the Greek Tree should only be painted by Greek Life organizations, or that the tree should be apolitical—but that’s an irrelevant argument.

It’s critical for our generation to accept the fact that people who disagree with each other have a right to voice their opposing opinions without being attacked. There’s a tendency among many young liberals to shame and attack someone for having a dissenting opinion instead of simply having open conversation about differences.

American colleges have long been a place of free thought and new ideas, and a place where young people debate on what path our country and society should take. While great ideas still permeate our college campuses, free and open debate seem to have stalled. Those with unpopular opinions are often afraid of being shamed for their beliefs and decide not to speak out on what they believe in.

We are not going to progress as a country if we decide that only certain beliefs are valid, or that only some ideas are worth hearing. There are, of course, legitimate examples of hateful, discriminatory speech that has no place on our campus, but common free and open discussion should be encouraged.

Personally, I like a lot of things about our campus culture and much of the things we’ve done to foster an inclusive community here at Geneseo. But we still need to offer that same inclusivity to people with whom we disagree. It’s not productive to publicly shame someone for a difference in opinion or a lack of understanding of a new cultural concept.

We should all make an honest attempt to understand the point of view of people who disagree with us instead of shutting them out of the discussion. Tearing down someone else’s right to freely express their beliefs is not a statement or an expression of an argument.

This behavior is cowardly and has no place on our campus.

Voter intimidation ruins safety, spirit of political efficacy

People often complain about rigged or inefficient polling stations after their desired nominee loses an election. The frustration of unsatisfied voters often causes widespread anxiety and panic about governmental and institutional corruption that unfairly led to the downfall of their nominee. This concern can be exaggerated, but often it is completely warranted. Recent incidents at polling stations on Election Day exemplify how vulnerable our election system is to voter suppression.

Though a crucial state for a nominee to gain electoral votes, voters in Florida experienced intimidation and fear mongering at some polling stations. At one station in Hollywood, Fla, voters were met with, “aggressive individuals hovering around individuals as they approach the polling site,” according to The Washington Post. Some voters left the area without casting a ballot because they felt unsafe.

Additionally, an “unauthorized individual” who refused to leave the building disturbed a polling station in a predominantly black precinct in Jacksonville, Fla. Although the intentions of this individual are vague and possibly unknown, it is unsettling to witness or to experience disciplinary action and security protection in action at the polls.

Voter intimidation and attempted voter suppression has existed as long as our democratic process has existed, and it is frightening that many people do not follow laws against it. The easiness with which a dangerous person can potentially arrive at a polling station and harm voters before help or security arrives is a giant flaw in our election organization.

While a switch to completely digital or remote voting is discouraged because of technology concerns, the protection of the right to vote is questioned and challenged for people who experience problems at the polls. Politicians and activists have recognized this failing time and time again, yet it is unclear how we can formally improve or restructure our process.

It would be incredibly unfortunate if election results were dramatically changed because of problems at polling stations. Now that the presidential election has come and gone, we can work toward improving our polling systems just in time for the midterm elections.

Socialist party supports radical, unrealistic campaign platform

Socialist vice presidential nominee Niles Niemuth visited Geneseo for a discussion hosted by the Geneseo chapter of International Youth and Students for Socialist Equality on Thursday Oct. 27. In my view, the question and answer session of this discussion showcased the intellectual weakness of the Socialist Equality Party. The SEP is a relatively new political party, modeled largely on the ideas of Soviet Red Army founder and prominent Marxist Leon Trotsky, whose influence was instrumental to the rise of communism in the Soviet Union. The SEP believes they are a liberal alternative to the Democratic Party.

The IYSSE discussion began with a quick presentation about SEP’s policies, followed by a question and answer session. When asked a question about United States foreign policy and the Islamic State, Niemuth quickly asserted that many global conflicts and issues were a result of capitalist greed with the epicenter located in the U.S. Niemuth also argued that a solution to U.S. foreign policy problems—including tense relations with Afghanistan and Russia—would be to withdraw all U.S. and European troops from occupied areas.

This platform is utterly idiotic. If the U.S. withdrew its troops, a worldwide power vacuum would be created. Powerful nations such as Russia and China would attempt to fill this space, creating widespread violence.

Niemuth added that by withdrawing U.S. troops and ceasing United Nations funding, a worldwide socialist revolution would occur. This is a utopian vision of the world. Socialist revolutions have rarely panned out, leading to disastrous results in Venezuela, the Soviet Union and Cuba. It’s clear that the SEP has no specific foreign policy plans for individual problem regions around the world.

In terms of domestic policy, the SEP makes Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders look like a Tea Party member. Niemuth argued that Sanders and the Democratic Party are merely capitalist pawns keeping the status quo in equilibrium.

Economics-wise, the SEP follows much of traditional Marxist doctrine, which calls for the seizure of the means of production, nationalization of industry and equalization of outcomes. Contrary to the American dream and economically illiterate, socialism is fundamentally wrong. The economies of capitalist countries tend to perform far better than their socialist counterparts. For example, after the split during the Cold War, East Germany followed a Soviet command economy, while West Germany followed a U.S.-style market economy. While the two sides were relatively equal before the split, eastern Germany’s gross domestic product in 2015 is only 67 percent of its western counterpart’s, according to The Economist. In my opinion, economics is not the strong point of the SEP.

All the talk of revolutions by the SEP is very disturbing. Niemuth spoke of a worker’s revolution at length during the Q&A. The SEP supposedly espouses violence, but when was the last peaceful communist revolution?

Overall, Niemuth’s presentation was extremely disappointing. The SEP vision of the U.S. and international community is very far removed from reality. Rhetoric seems to triumph over coherent policy for this group of socialists. Hopefully, not too many people will be writing in the SEP on the ballot this election.

Comey letter threatens ethical fairness of upcoming election

The separation of governmental powers is one of the foundations of modern democracy. Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey violated that principle by informing House of Representatives Republicans on Friday Oct. 28 that his department had discovered new emails that “may be significant” to its investigation into former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Inappropriate conduct such as this is common in many parts of the world where the legal system functions as a tool for the government to impose its will on the people. The FBI is an investigative organization, which means that it has a responsibility to handle confidential material carefully and discreetly. Comey’s declarative letter followed neither of these principles.

The FBI is a section of the Department of Justice, which has a longstanding policy of not interfering with elections. This is often interpreted to mean that it avoids releasing pertinent information to the public within 60 days of an election. DOJ officials informed Comey of this, yet his announcement came within 11 days of the presidential election.

Comey’s letter to the United States Congress stated that he felt he had an obligation to report the information “in light of [his] previous testimony,” in which he had promised that the Bureau’s efforts were complete and that he would inform the Committee of any new developments.

The problem with this justification is that nothing has developed in Clinton’s case to the point at which it would be useful to share with the House, let alone the public. The new emails in question are reportedly from a computer shared by Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her husband Anthony Weiner, who is under investigation for sexual misconduct. In other words, these emails likely were not even sent by Clinton. In addition, Comey’s letter led many in the media to declare that the Clinton email case had been “reopened”—even though the case had never been officially closed.

Not only was Comey’s letter misleading, but it appeared to show a bias in his handling of politically sensitive investigations. Though the media doesn’t like to discuss it, the FBI is currently investigating Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s possible connections to recent Russian hacks of U.S. state computers. The FBI has not come forward with preliminary information about this investigation, even though its outcome is just as relevant to voters as that of Clinton’s email scandal.

Comey’s letter does seem to be affecting voters’ minds about the election. Trump is currently at a 23 percent chance of winning—his highest since the beginning of October, according to FiveThirtyEight’s polls-plus model.

The FBI is clearly aware of the potential impact of its work on the election, and Comey’s choice about how to deal with these concerns was a mistake. In trying to appear apolitical and thus help salvage the public perception of the American political system, Comey is giving one side inappropriate and more intense public scrutiny than the other.

There is no basis for this behavior in his mandate of assisting the justice system. Many critics of Clinton’s email scandal are not interested in giving her actions a fair and balanced assessment.

The basis of the email scandal claims that Clinton may have recklessly exposed state secrets to hackers. This claim often seems like a curious avenue of political attack against her since her opponent is likely the most reckless figure in modern politics.

But, overall, Clinton’s misuse of a private server certainly doesn’t approach the recklessness of Comey’s public revelation about a confidential case.

Pipeline arrests bring attention to indigenous culture, civil rights

Actress Shailene Woodley and 26 other Dakota Access Pipeline protesters were arrested on Oct. 10. Woodley’s arrest—which occurred on Indigenous Peoples’ Day—received mass media coverage and consequently informed people about the situation in North Dakota. Woodley inspirationally used her platform to advocate for the Native American protestors who the media continuously ignore.

Woodley protested the completion of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which—if completed—would carry oil from North Dakota to Illinois. The protestors resist the construction because “the $3.7 billion pipeline threatens the region’s water supply and would harm sacred cultural lands and tribal burial grounds,” according to The New York Times.

Woodley expressed her concerns about the environmental factors of the Dakota Access Pipeline in her Time Magazine essay “The Truth About My Arrest,” stating, “If we don’t begin taking genuine steps to protect our precious resources … we will not have a healthy or thriving planet to pass on to future generations.” Consequently, she is also challenging deep-seated cultural issues through her advocacy.

Woodley has condemned the media’s obsession with her arrest simply because of her celebrity status and white privilege. “It took me, a white non-native woman being arrested … to bring this cause to many people’s attention,” Woodley wrote.

Many celebrities use their fame to advocate for certain causes they are passionate about, which is usually effective. What sets Woodley apart, however, is her condemnation of the way her particular arrest gained mass media attention while many Native American protesters are arrested daily without coverage.

Twenty-six other North Dakota protestors were arrested on the same day as Woodley, yet none of the multitude of headlines contained their names or their stories. This is exactly what Woodley is trying to explain to us: our culture purposefully and ignorantly refuses to equate the validity of Native American culture with that of our own.

Regardless of the importance of the Dakota Access Pipeline construction being stopped, Woodley proved that there are even more ingrained social biases at play here that are causing the issue to be overlooked.

Woodley denounced the way many Americans see Native American culture as fashionable or decorative and the way Americans do not respect the culture. Ethnic biases in the United States are evident in the Dakota Access Pipeline issue; as a nation, many of us overlook the environmental and cultural consequences of the pipeline’s construction because it does not directly affect us.

Woodley calls for action in creating her essay. “What if we used [my arrest] as a catalyst for a full societal shift in the way we start thinking and treating and learning from indigenous peoples? So that in the future, it doesn’t require a non-native celebrity to bring attention to the cause,” Woodley wrote.

The passion, environmental consciousness and ethnical inclusion shown by Woodley should serve as an inspiration to us all. Hopefully, the publicity surrounding Woodley’s arrest—although unjust in and of itself—will encourage Americans to learn about the environmental effects of the Dakota Access Pipeline and genuinely reevaluate the way Native American people are valued in modern culture.

Adverse effects should motivate new research in birth control

Women too frequently experience societal double standards often led by hegemonic masculine ideals. The recent controversy over the temporary halt of men’s birth control research due to its medical side effects reveals not only that women experience sexism in healthcare, but also that men’s and women’s reproductive health needs further contemporary research. A study published on Thursday Oct. 27 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism observed overall success in pregnancy prevention by use of a male hormonal birth control injection. The researchers terminated the study early, however, due to some participants experiencing uncomfortable side effects from the birth control.

The study went viral both for its precedent in the future market of men’s birth control, but also for backlash against the proclaimed “mild” side effects that men experienced. The most common side effects of the injection were generally normal, including injection site pain, increased libido and acne. The more serious side effects of the injection—such as severe depression and damage to fertility—are not discussed as often in the current debate about men’s versus women’s birth control side effects.

Uncomfortable side effects are all too common for women who take hormonal birth control pills. Birth control pills can worsen depression in women, cause painful periods, mood swings, headaches and—in more serious cases—fatal blood clots.

Many Facebook and Twitter users circulated the study, adding indignant comments about the gender double standard within reproductive health. Many women shared their personal stories about uncomfortable or severe birth control side effects, expressing frustration that women have endured these effects for decades, yet men could not even bear them just for a research study.

There is a logical argument for women’s frustration over the comparison of birth control side effects. There is a long history of women receiving healthcare clouded by casual sexism, as seen through the difficult and politically-charged abortion process and the refusal of privately-owned companies to fund contraceptives to employees.

Women, historically, have been expected to take responsibility for their sexual decisions and contraceptives more seriously than men. Additionally, women are usually more shamed or ostracized if an unwanted pregnancy occurs.

While it is understandable that women are angry that research for men’s birth control has been deemed too harsh for men—side effects that women’s birth control pills have caused for decades—the study can be used in a positive way to improve all contraceptives.

The serious effects of men’s birth control—such as depression and decreased fertility—should not be overlooked, just as the serious effects of women’s birth control—also depression and fatal blood clots—should not be overlooked. The reaction of researchers to the side effects of men’s birth control should be applied to women’s birth control as well.

Researchers and medical professionals should use this public reaction to fund studies that research better birth control options for both men and women. If both hormonal methods cause side effects, one’s effects should not be considered harsher than the other. New research studying the severe side effects of birth control would be beneficial for the overall reproductive health of the country, which has been lacking in recent years.

It is frustrating that men often don’t take women’s health and pain seriously—that is, unless men endure the same pain. This situation is parallel to the argument that if men menstruated, then employers would allow designated sick days every month. Once we identify the societal double standards, however, we can build an argument for equally researching and developing healthier contraceptives for future generations.

Partisan rivalries block crucial policy decisions

Former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is still leading in most national polls, prompting Republican politicians to brace for another four years of opposition party control of the White House. Rather than crafting new policy proposals to appeal to more voters—or to create more effective ways of compromising with the other side—Republican leaders appear ready to continue with more of the same inaction that has characterized our government for the past several years.

Many Republicans in the United States Senate and House of Representatives have signaled—or outright declared—that they are prepared to hunker down and prevent Clinton from accomplishing anything in her time in office if she is elected. This is essentially a continuation of the current Republican strategy of attempting to undermine President Barack Obama and any major piece of legislation he advocates. The level of partisan backlash a Clinton administration may experience, however, could be unprecedented in nature.

The last six years of Obama’s presidency were filled with partisan gridlock and turmoil. Aside from Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s highly criticized filibusters, the government maintained its functionality. That may not be the case in a Clinton administration.

One of the most important constitutional responsibilities of a president is to appoint new Supreme Court judges. After the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February, the role has been left unfilled as Senate Republicans have refused to even consider Obama’s moderate nominee Judge Merrick Garland.

The highest court in America has been hindered by an even number of justices for eight months due to the Republican claim that a Supreme Court position should not be filled in the last year of a president’s term. This unprecedented inaction by the Senate may go on even longer under a Clinton administration.

When Arizona Sen. John McCain was asked about the prospect of a Clinton Supreme Court nominee, he responded, “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” according to The Washington Post. McCain’s office later retracted this statement, but McCain’s words are a frightening example of how party loyalty has overshadowed democratic duty.

In the House of Representatives—where Republicans are likely to keep a majority—more gridlock and partisan chaos seem likely to develop. Utah Congressman and head of the House Oversight Committee Jason Chaffetz said he is willing to use his powerful position to investigate Clinton’s past for years to come.

This level of partisan backlash is unsustainable if we wish to maintain a functioning system of government. Disagreements on issues of policy are natural in a democracy, but what the Republican Party has done—and is preparing to do—goes well beyond policy disagreements. Their actions, whether they realize it or not, are hurting the nation as a whole. It took Congress seven months just to approve funding to fight Zika virus because of Republican attempts to defund Planned Parenthood.

I do not want to suggest that Republicans are the sole reason for these partisan divides, as politicians from across the board often put party interests over the good of the country. Nonetheless, it is incredibly disturbing to witness nearly an entire political party deliberately hindering the government's ability to function just to damage the opposing party.

If this partisan divide is not healed, we may be heading toward a constitutional crisis.