Defunding Planned Parenthood jeopardizes necessary health care

View fullsize

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, at the Women’s March on Washington in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 21. An anti-abortion march was held after the Women’s March on Friday Jan. 27, highlighting the ongoing struggle to separate Planned Parenthood’s abortion services from its general reproductive health services. (Jose Luis Magana/AP Photo)

Quickly following the Women’s March on Washington, there was a March for Life also held in Washington, D.C. on Friday Jan. 27. Participants of this march gather annually to protest abortion and its legality.

Many participants held signs which boldly stated, “We don’t need Planned Parenthood,” which were consequently accompanied by a speech from Vice President Mike Pence about how he plans to cut funding to abortion providers. Pence, instead, intends to give funds to crisis pregnancy centers, which are private clinics that fail to provide women with accurate, unbiased information on health care and that attempt to persuade them not to have abortions.  

This anti-choice rhetoric being supported by many people—and watching them so confidently claim that Planned Parenthood isn’t needed—made me question whether they actually know what Planned Parenthood does for both men and women across the country.  

Aside from the fact that Planned Parenthood provides safe abortion procedures for women who want them, it also provides countless other services. Planned Parenthood provides safe methods of birth control, pap tests, breast exams, testing for sexually transmitted infections and treatment for sexually transmitted infections to 4.2 million men and women across the nation. 

Only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood services provided are for abortions—97 percent of the services that Planned Parenthood provides have nothing to do with abortion.

One especially important aspect of Planned Parenthood is that they provide accurate and informative education about sexual and reproductive health care. Without this free and accurate information, millions of people across the nation wouldn’t have access to the knowledge they need to stay healthy. This knowledge also provides people with the information they need to practice safe sex, which in turn prevents unwanted pregnancies and the contractions of sexually transmitted infections. 

Planned Parenthood is a completely unbiased source of information and provider of health care. The purpose of their clinics is to provide patients with accurate and complete information about reproductive and sexual health. 

Places like crisis pregnancy centers, however, are known to both provide inaccurate information on reproductive health care and on options for pregnant women. They are also notorious for turning women against abortion as a legitimate choice. 

A clinic providing something as serious as reproductive health care and education needs to be honest and respectful of the choices women make regarding their own bodies. Pence’s plan to take funding from Planned Parenthood and to give it to crisis pregnancy centers is a dishonest way to try to control women’s agency. 

In the process of doing this, the nearly five million people that receive accurate health care information from Planned Parenthood will lose this valuable source. The defunding of Planned Parenthood will be a huge disadvantage to the people in the United States as well as a huge step back for reproductive health care.

If people seeking information on reproductive health care are being misinformed, how are they supposed to stay healthy? Individuals may not be able to make the right, informed choice for themselves if they don’t have access to this information. 

Everyone is entitled to honest and complete information to help them to make an informed decision that is best for them in terms of health care and reproductive health. By defunding Planned Parenthood, our government supports dishonesty and manipulation that affects citizens across the nation.

Sexist journalism persists within coverage of women’s rights march

There has been no shortage of inspirational journalism regarding the Women’s March on Washington on Jan. 21. Along with quality writing, however, there are some insulting and detrimental pieces—specifically “How Vital Are Women? This Town Found Out as They Left to March” in The New York Times. 

The Jan. 22 article focuses on Montclair, New Jersey, where women of the town joined the March on Washington. Eventually, residents of Montclair realized how important women were to their daily lives. 

The first paragraph of the highly-criticized article points out that on the day of the women’s march many women were absent from Montclair. The article’s author, Filip Bondy, makes references to how empty the town’s Starbucks and yoga studio were—places that are stereotypically labeled as feminine. This opening to the piece is shallow and plays into female stereotypes, which is consistent with the remainder of the article. 

Bondy’s piece seems to present irrelevant information and comes off as blatantly ignorant. The article is offensive on many fronts: to the Women’s March, to women in general and lastly to men who are parents.

The media buzz surrounding the women’s rights movement has not only been instrumental to its success but also serves as a tribute to those who have been a constant support. To have an article such as Bondy’s published in The New York Times almost seems to satirize the march and demean its importance. 

The headline itself suggests that the only outcome of the women’s march was that these specific men in this town realized that women were somewhat useful. In such a charged political atmosphere, this type of journalism seems wasteful and regressive.

Further, the article basically reduces a woman’s role to being a mother. While motherhood is an honorable and important role to many women, it is impossible that each woman in Montclair that attended the march identifies only as a mother. There were surely female doctors, lawyers, teachers and business owners that attended the march. 

The article, however, barely mentions this. Bondy narrowly focuses on the way the women’s husbands were affected by their decision to march, instead of how their decision could affect their own futures as women in the United States.

Lastly, while this article mostly infuriated women, men are also represented poorly. Bondy paints the picture that when the women left to march, the men were stranded to helplessly complete trivial housework tasks. For example, Bondy quotes a Montclair father saying, “Doing everything by myself all day long is not typical.” 

The article also outlines the tasks that the fathers had to deal with such as, “children’s birthday parties, dance performances, swimming lessons and lacrosse and indoor soccer practices. Growling stomachs required filling on a regular basis.” Here, Bondy not only insinuates that the men did not formerly appreciate their wives, but are also utterly incapable of parenting alone—thus fulfilling yet another gender stereotype. 

The Women’s March was intended to be empowering, and Bondy’s article completely misses the mark. Journalism such as this is sexist, misogynistic mockery and cannot be tolerated during a time when the news can be so instrumental to a cause. 

While it is easy to dismiss this article as being undeserving of our time, it is imperative to refute its claim and to use it to fuel the fight against the sexism that pervades our society.

Care packages do not prevent, address cause of sexual assault

The Thursday Jan. 26 issue of The Lamron included a news article covering a new initiative that Geneseo is part of called SUNY’s Got Your Back—a SUNY-wide program intended to provide relief to victims of sexual assault. “Intended” is, what I believe, the correct choice of word here. While the program has good intentions, it does far less than it should to actively combat a serious problem among many college campuses.

Through this program at Geneseo, “comfort bags” filled with T-shirts, sweatshirts, toiletries and personal care items are given out at hospitals to victims of sexual assault. In this article, RESTORE’s College Advocate Coordinator Christi Waldron is quoted saying that these items can be used “after something’s happened to freshen up.” These words are incredibly demeaning and insensitive, especially coming from an individual whose profession is dedicated to helping victims of sexual assault.

The notion of donating a bag full of necessities is most advantageous to people suffering in situations such as poverty or war since they may not have access to many basic items that are necessary to survive. At many other schools that are a part of the program, these bags are donated to rape crisis and domestic violence shelters. 

At Geneseo, however, donated bags are sent to hospitals through Rochester’s RESTORE Sexual Assault Service organization. While it is not safe to assume that victims of sexual assault may also be in these types of financially unstable situations, it is a stretch to assume that all victims of sexual assault will not have access to basic items such as clothing and toiletries. 

One in four women will experience sexual assault in their lifetime, but the true statistic is unknown due to the amount of sexual assaults that go unreported. A large flaw in this program is that it does absolutely nothing to victims who do not wish to report the crime. These victims experience the same amount of trauma, yet are unable to receive any help.  

The funding for this largely ineffectual program should be allocated toward actively engaging in helping victims of sexual assault, rather than in simply providing bags of items that “benefit” victims. Sexual assault is both a physically and mentally traumatizing experience—an experience that a bag of donated goods just won’t fix. Rather than donating bags, SUNY could help by covering hospital bills and by providing therapy to victims. 

Preventing sexual assault should be of utmost importance; it should be marked before providing relief to victims. Many times, this is easy to forget. Offering relief to victims is a nice gesture, yes; it does nothing, however, to solve the bigger problem. 

If Geneseo is serious about combatting the issue of sexual assault, then it should not pour our time, money and resources into an initiative that does not seriously help victims with this devastating issue.

Boy Scouts policy shows potential for changing conservative attitudes

The United States has undoubtedly entered a new era of conservatism under President Donald Trump, and bipartisan tension is skyrocketing in both public and private spheres. Amid presidential executive orders and controversial selections to his cabinet, it is necessary to hold accountable and to keep a critical eye on organizations that actively discriminate against disempowered Americans.

The Boy Scouts of America—which was established more than 100 years ago—is one organization that has had its fair share of criticism and public backlash for its generally conservative policies. Until 2013, the organization banned openly gay youths from joining and participating in the program—a policy that largely upholds negative stereotyping about gay men as acting in predatory behavior. 

The Boy Scouts, however, kicked an 8-year-old transgender boy out of his local New Jersey Cub Scout pack as recently as Dec. 30, 2016 after parents of other members complained. 

“The Boy Scouts just spent several years trying to make right a decades-old policy that discriminated against gay people,” co-founder of Scouts for Equality Zach Wahls said. “The last thing they should be doing in this moment is creating a new, discriminatory policy that is out of touch in the 21st century.”

Despite this recent controversy, the Boy Scouts announced a change in their policy on allowing transgender youth into their organization. The organization officially stated on Monday Jan. 30 that it will no longer require prospective members to provide a birth certificate to prove their assigned gender. Therefore, transgender and nonbinary children will be welcome to join.

While it is frustrating that—under a conservative administration—a policy on LGBTQ+ rights is vulnerable and under threat, it is comforting to know that there is a possibility for conservative organizations to change and to become more open-minded. The Boy Scouts need to make up for their long history of discrimination and anti-LGBTQ+ politics, and this new policy is a starting point from which they can improve their organization.

Hopefully similar charity groups or recreational organizations—such as the Salvation Army—adopt helpful LGBTQ+ policies and chose the side of acceptance rather than intolerance.

Michelle Obama remains model for aspiring women politicians

Michelle Obama resiliently served as First Lady of the United States for eight years, despite being doubted, underappreciated and criticized by public opinion. As the first black woman to hold the position, she destroyed the notion that being the First Lady simply means being the president’s wife. 

As a new presidential administration begins, it is imperative to acknowledge Obama as the woman who has evoked positive change and who selflessly dedicated her life to this nation over the past eight years.

Obama—praised for her humor, fashion sense and maternal instincts—offered so much more to American society and politics. As a Princeton graduate and former lawyer, the intelligence and determination that she exhibited before taking office cannot go unnoticed. Further, Obama’s commendable ambition only strengthened when she took office. 

The First Lady was not daunted by the job at hand, but fearlessly took current social issues, such as poverty, healthy living and education head on, according to the Biography.com editors’ “Michelle Obama Biography.”

While Obama’s accomplishments were often overshadowed, she remained focused and consistent when it came to her objectives. Some of the First Lady’s major feats include the launch of the Let’s Move! Child Care to address childhood obesity, as well as the National School Lunch Program to provide lunches to more than 21 million low-income children. 

Additionally, Obama created the Reach Higher Initiative to inspire children to complete education past high school, hosted a dinner at the White House to encourage young girls to close the gender gap and helped launch Joining Forces to encourage support for veterans and service members.

“Unfortunately, there are gender lenses when you look at women who have political ambition,” Republican pollster Christine Matthews said in The New York Times. “The American public doesn’t want that in a First Lady. They want someone nice and relatable.” 

Obama refused to believe this statement, however, as she spearheaded policy and hard-pressing issues right alongside her husband. This fearlessness and ambition, though, is presumably why Obama faced brutal criticism during her time as First Lady. 

The torment she received was rarely focused on; instead, it was about her gender and race. According to CNN, the First Lady was called an “ape in heels” as well as “monkey face” by a Colorado doctor, per Huffington Post. Despite this—and many other insults hurled at her—Obama constantly stood tall and encouraged others who were being persecuted to do the same. 

This strength and commitment to acting as a role model for younger generations is what made Obama not only an exceptional First Lady, but an exceptional individual.

Obama was referred to as “the closer” by The New York Times during her husband’s campaign because she was a captivating speaker and because she could persuade voters. Obama’s final speech as First Lady on Jan. 6 can attest that her ability to captivate an audience remains.

“All the young people in this room and those who are watching, know that this country belongs to you—to all of you, from every background and walk of life,” Obama said. 

It is a message like this one that needs to be communicated; this type of verbal inclusion, particularly from such a prominent political figure, can make a significant difference in a young life.

Women’s march exudes white privilege, requires intersectionality

View fullsize

The Women’s March on Washington in Washington D.C. occurred on Saturday Jan. 21 and inspired dozens of other anti-Trump marches around the world. The original march, however, faces criticism of white-washed feminist politics and lack of intersectional representation. (Brian Cassella/AP Photo)

President Donald Trump’s inauguration, despite public claims and tweets, was not the most-attended inauguration ceremony in United States history. The inauguration, in fact, was overshadowed by another significant social and political event—the Women’s March on Washington. Not only was the event held in Washington, D.C., but also in dozens of other places around the globe. 

Half a million people gathered in Washington, D.C. on Saturday Jan. 21 in support for women’s rights related to reproduction and contraception and in protest against the new Trump administration. Similar marches were held in major U.S. cities such as New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, and in areas on every continent—including Antarctica. It is estimated that 4.3-4.6 million people marched in support worldwide. 

While the D.C. women’s march showed a passionate increase in political efficacy and contemporary organization for women’s rights, it is not above criticism for its tendency to place whiteness at its core and to exclude people of color, trans people, disabled people and other oppressed groups from their mainstream rhetoric.

While the march centered on women’s rights and reproductive justice in reaction to recent legislation condemning Planned Parenthood, it was also a large-scale anti-Trump rally. Because of the nature of the protest, many different groups participated to bring awareness to numerous different issues—including racism, homophobia and environmental rights. 

What stood out about the march, however, was that its peacefulness and success were due to the white privilege of most of its participants.

Many critics, including editor of feminist website The Establishment Ijeoma Oluo, attribute the positivity, camaraderie and safety of the march to white peoples’ ability to organize in large crowds without an immediate, violent reaction from police.

“To brag that no one was arrested at a march that was filled with white women, as if that is an accomplishment that you really had a huge part of, what it does is it says that marches that were branded as ‘disruptive’ are less than,” Oluo said in a Tuesday Jan. 24 Boston radio interview.

In Internet discourse, the women’s march was compared to recent and ongoing national Black Lives Matter protests and the Dakota Access Pipeline protests that garner negative press and receive aggressive and deadly police intervention. While the entirety of Saturday’s marches included support for both these and other related causes, it was the overwhelming presence of white women that reimagined protesting and demonstration in a “peaceful” light—or, rather, biased media and spectators constructed it as so.

In an iconic photo that captures the essence of the march’s criticism, protestor Angela Peoples is portrayed sucking on a lollipop with a sign that says, “Don’t forget: White Women Voted for Trump” while a group of white women protestors take selfies and use their phones in the background. Images are powerful, and Peoples’ contribution to the critique of white, mainstream feminism is valuable for future discussions and education about intersectional feminism.

To say intersectionality is needed in all feminist discourse and activism is an understatement. Not only do organized marches reflect what protestors are passionate about, but they also reflect what protests are ignorant of. White women need to use their white privilege to support and to aid the women of color, trans women, LGBTQ+ women and disabled women that have less power in society to stand up against their oppressors. White women must attend, contribute and help organize events that directly address the problems faced by other groups of oppressed women.

While the worldwide demonstrations against Trump show promise that we can still stand together to make change in the current political climate, we must ask ourselves who is benefiting from our efforts and who is still left behind.

Trump’s candid claims hold real threat with political backing

When President Donald Trump assumed office on Friday Jan. 20, he fulminated against “the crime and the gangs and the drugs” and vowed to end “this American carnage.” With violent crime rates at historic lows, his characterization reads as hyperbole—and the complex nature of such social issues causes his vow to strain belief.  

Trump’s inauguration speech perfectly mirrored a campaign season in which he described Mexican immigrants as “rapists,” lied to the press and made wild promises such as establishing a registry of American Muslims and building a wall on the Mexican border. The election of such a man has raised questions about the nature of facts and the role of language in public discourse.

“I think a lot of voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally,” Silicon Valley venture capitalist and prominent Trump supporter Peter Thiel said. 

Taking everything Trump says 100 percent literally feeds perceptions that liberals are a stuck-up and contemptuous lot, and undoubtedly functions to increase divisions in the country. Yet it would be a mistake to think that Trump will not follow through on the majority of his promises—the simple reason being that his power as president will depend, to a large extent, on his reliability.

The United States Constitution grants the president many powers, but he can ultimately only accomplish things to the extent that others are willing to work with him. By not following through on his word, Trump would destroy the basic trust that underpins all civic relationships, ranging from those with Congress, to the press and to his own staff. 

Viewed from the perception of politicians as two-faced weasels, this conclusion might seem counterintuitive, but a solid body of evidence backs it up. Michael Krukones, a political scientist at Bellarmine College, found that about 75 percent of all campaign promises were kept by presidents in the period from Woodrow Wilson to Jimmy Carter. Whether the promises became reality depended on a wide range of actors, but the presidents he studied all acted to implement their proposed agendas.

 Some view Trump as a media manipulator and pawn of the right-wing extremists. His coalition says that what he says is a distraction that should be given no weight. This argument misses the point. Even if Trump is nothing more than the dancing monkey used by the radical right as a cover for their takeover of the American government, his puppeteers would still want him to retain enough credibility for their movement to enact its agenda.

Furthermore, what we know of Trump’s basic psychology supports the conclusion that he will work to keep his promises. Leaks from aides going back to President Barack Obama’s public mockery of Trump in 2011 claim that Trump desperately wants to be taken seriously. If working to advance a destructive and absurd agenda is what it takes to achieve that, he will likely do it.

It is worth pointing out that not taking Trump seriously serves to infantilize him, and the abdication of responsibility for his actions that it implies is absurd when compared to the brutal standard to which the public held Hillary Clinton accountable for her misguided use of a private email server. 

This attitude underestimates the power of words in public life. Until recently the idea of spending billions of dollars building a wall along the Mexican border was absurd, but Trump spoke those words during the election and now the wall is a serious public policy proposal. 

When it comes down to it, the fundamentals of our country are all just words. The U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are words in the mouths of men. If we believe that these words mean something, then they must be defended against any credible threat—even someone we never expected to have to take seriously.

This article is part of the Face Off series. To read the responding article, click here.

Entertaining Trump’s propaganda gives him undeserved legitimacy

In response to critics, many supporters of President Donald Trump justify his exaggerations and blatant lies by stressing that Trump should be taken seriously—but not literally. 

The argument claims that Trump is a loose cannon and that his off-the-cuff remarks should not always be taken as his literal stance on an issue. Instead, focus should be concentrated on the sentiment of his remarks.

This, in many ways, is an absurd argument. The president of the United States should be held accountable to what he says regardless of his tendency to be characterized as a “loose cannon.” 

Those are rules for a normal presidency, however, and Trump is not a normal president. Trump is a known pathological liar and media manipulator who purposely gives misleading information to distract his opponents.

This being the case, taking Trump at face value only helps him to manipulate the public. This is a man who can—and repeatedly has—dominated the news cycle with a single tweet. 

When Trump’s words are taken at face value, his words are given value—value that they often don’t deserve. That does not mean that Trump’s statements or tweets should be ignored, though; rather, they should be viewed in the context of a man who can expertly misguide the media and deceive the public.

It is in this way that we should take him seriously and not literally. For example, in a December 2016 tweet Trump said, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.” 

This prompted a major outrage over the thought of nuclear weapon expansion in both the media and public opinion. It was an understandable outrage—but one that allowed Trump to avoid more publicity over his conflicts of interest or his controversial cabinet nominations.

Even if one assumes that Trump has no intention of misleading the public, he changes his policy positions so frequently that it is unrealistic to take anything he says as his word. He has shifted positions on abortion, taxes and healthcare policy—just to name a few.

To take Trump seriously is to assume that he has legitimate causes to say and do everything he does. In other words, he’s unintelligent, but he’s not dumb. Every tweet and every statement has its purpose, whether you agree with it or not. To take him literally gives credibility to his constant falsehoods and lies. 

In addition, this is not just a Trump phenomenon; his advisers and press team have followed his lead. 

Trump’s former campaign manager and counselor to the president, Kellyanne Conway consistently gives misleading answers and evades tough questions on many television programs on which she appears. Trump’s press secretary Sean Spicer recently claimed that Trump’s inauguration speech was the most attended and highest watched in history—which is an obvious and clumsy lie.

The media are finally starting to catch on, as they are now covering Trump and his administration’s statements with more carefully worded titles. Instead of simply repeating what Trump said and using it as a headline, some news organizations—such as The New York Times—are fact-checking Trump’s words directly in headlines.

Under this new administration, it is necessary to craft new strategies to make these lies clear to the public. It appears, unfortunately, that we are heading into a period in which each side of the electorate operates on their own set of facts—making it unclear as to how this problem of dishonesty from the president can be alleviated.

This article is part of the Face Off series. To read the responding article, click here.

Twitter is resourceful, critical news commentary tool

In recent years, the world of journalism has adapted to the constantly changing standards brought about by the rise of social media. Whether it be news pieces by legacy news sources such as the BBC or clickbait articles your family members share, social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat have become saturated with news stories.

Twitter serves an important journalistic function, as it welcomes established media organizations and non-journalists to share news as it happens in real time. With the current mistrust of mainstream media and the rise of “fake news”—popularized by President Donald Trump—Twitter is emerging as a reputable source for news.

Twitter is the perfect environment for citizen journalists who are free of corporate interests or political ties. Thus, they are capable of sharing information without the type of biases that bigger media outlets may have. Furthermore, Twitter allows marginalized groups that are often ignored by the mainstream media to have a voice and to discuss complex or controversial issues that often go unreported.

Citizens have become increasingly critical, however, of the news media. In the wake of the 2016 presidential election, many media consumers are skeptical of big-name news sources, such as MSNBC, Fox News, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Americans mistrust both the liberal media and ultra-conservative sources alike. Seventy-four percent of Americans feel that news organizations offer one-sided accounts of stories, according to a recent study from journalism.org. 

Twitter, as a news source, in no way provides unbiased news, but it also does not claim to—which makes it more ethical in practice. Mainstream news organizations pride themselves on neutrality and objectivity, whereas Twitter users make no such claims and often use their opinions to make tweets more appealing and provocative. 

Media scholars have debated the existence of truly unbiased news for years, as the mere selection of news stories requires some form of opinion. This growing interest in editorial or “soft” news makes Twitter an ideal platform, as we are given accounts from people with explicit interests and who have lived experiences that provide a perspective that traditional journalism cannot. 

Twitter also addresses another key problem with legacy news organizations: their underrepresentation of marginalized groups. Complex issues such as police brutality, reproductive rights and transgender rights are rarely discussed in the mainstream media. 

Thus, Twitter has become a jumping-off point in starting discourse about these issues, where members of underrepresented communities are able to share their lived experiences and opinions. Twitter serves as a platform to communicate, to engage and to educate one another in an interactive way.

A perfect example of Twitter’s effectiveness is the #BlackLivesMatter movement. This movement began on Twitter in response to the 2013 death of Trayvon Martin and has since become an ideological centerpiece of the modern civil rights movement. Twitter users described their personal experiences with racism, as they tweeted updates on rallies and protests in order to spread information on the numerous police shootings that were overlooked by the mainstream press. 

This in no way means that all information from Twitter is trustworthy, or even remotely true. But our skepticism toward mainstream, legacy journalistic sources could cause a huge shift in how we consume news—and Twitter is ideal in its personalized, openly subjective and conversational nature. 

While Twitter can be dangerous in that it allows certain newly-elected presidents to tweet unfounded claims, it subsequently creates a dialogue in which users can respond with instantaneous critique.

Boycotting corporations does little to spur political change

Our nation’s current political climate involves many crucial aspects of United States bureaucracy, administration and overall societal norms. Among everyday citizens, there is a growing wave of motivation to organize or to act in some way against—or in support of—President Donald Trump.

While hardly controversial compared to other recent events—such as the anti-Trump women’s rights marches that occurred on Saturday Jan. 21 or White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s comments about the media—a debatably ineffective method adopted to resist Trump’s influence is a boycott against corporations whose founders or owners support him.

One corporation at the center of the anti-Trump boycotts is L.L. Bean, the clothing retailer Trump recently thanked via Twitter for a private political action committee donation on behalf of Linda Bean, granddaughter of the company’s founder.

While Bean’s donation was not connected to the corporation—as its current Executive Chairman Shawn Gorman emphasized that the company “stay[s] out of politics”—the viral nature of Twitter helped tarnish its reputation. The hashtag campaign “#GrabYourWallet” was created to motivate a boycott against the company.

Boycotts, historically and contemporarily, are socially significant methods of engaging in the political process. The problem with the L.L. Bean boycotting campaign is that it singles out only one corporation—out of probably hundreds, if not thousands—that engage in political or economic activity that one may deem unethical or immoral. Bean was outspoken about her political beliefs, yet there are most likely many conservative or like-minded people in her position that prefer to keep their politics private.

Realistically, refusing to shop at L.L. Bean—or other corporations that endured minor controversies, such as Chick-Fil-A and its homophobic owner—is more of a personal triumph than one that installs significant resistance or change. Boycotting one corporation while not acknowledging the ills of others is not exactly productive; the consequent self-praise one may give oneself for this method of resistance does not help activist efforts either.

If one wants to boycott a corporation that he/she deems problematic—for whatever reason—it must be a committed and ongoing lifestyle choice, because there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Engaging in protests, organized demonstrations or educational workshops related to resistance are better ways to contribute real energy to a cause.

Obama should use final weeks to decriminalize drugs, reform laws

The United States will enter the 46th year of its War on Drugs in 2017. Since 1971, the harshly prohibitive American drug policy of Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton has helped to not only fuel the current system of mass incarceration in the U.S., but has also created an intense social stigma that views drugs and drug offenders as inherently immoral. President Barack Obama and the Department of Justice must use every tool they have to draw down the War on Drugs before President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration in January.

The Obama administration has already indicated its willingness to challenge aspects of American drug policy. This president commuted the sentences of 774 federal prisoners, a greater number of commutations than the past 11 presidents combined, according to The Washington Post. These commutations were largely granted to those who received overly harsh sentences for drug crimes.

Obama must continue the commutation tactic and expand into granting pardons. But despite the work he has done to challenge the archaic sentencing norms of the War on Drugs, Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics indicate that drug offenders still make up nearly half of all federal prisoners.

The Obama administration should also codify states’ laws legalizing marijuana in the federal system. After Colorado and Washington voted to legalize marijuana for recreational use in 2012, the DOJ simply decided to look away from the issue instead of changing federal laws to expressly allow state legalization.

As it stands, the Controlled Substance Act does not allow for the sale of Schedule 1 controlled substances such as marijuana. The Obama administration still has time to reschedule marijuana in his last few weeks of the presidency, thereby making it harder to repeal the legalization and decriminalization of the drug from the past eight years. The legalization of marijuana has been a crucial step away from the prohibitive drug policy that fuels the War on Drugs.

The most important step that the president and the DOJ must take is to directly call for an end to the War on Drugs. Since the Obama administration has participated in enforcing drug policies, it would be a drastic step, but a high-profile speech calling for an end to the War on Drugs could go a long way in fixing the system. Obama has indicated his desire for drug law reform, and utilizing his bully pulpit could catalyze further local and state level efforts after he leaves office.

In regard to Trump, current prospects for drug policy reform are dismal. His choice for attorney general, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, publicly declared in a Senate drug hearing in April 2016 that “good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

Trump has also purportedly supported the excessively violent operations of the Philippine War on Drugs, according to The New York Times. It is not unlikely that the Trump administration will try to increase penalties or otherwise repeal the efforts of the past eight years to reform the DOJ.

The last two months of Obama’s administration may be the last chance to make significant changes to the status quo of drug laws in the next four years. The War on Drugs perpetuates the idea that drugs are evil and drug offenders are dangerous. In reality, however, certain drug use can be beneficial and drug offenders often need clinical help.

Using the power he has left, Obama must do all he can to reverse the trends of close to 50 years of the failed War on Drugs.

Trump flag burning comments show disregard for basic rights

With roughly seven weeks until President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, Americans have seen the appointment of Cabinet members, a campaign-style trail of rallies and several controversial tweets. Trump’s use of social media in suggesting presidential policies, though, is probably not the best way for him to do it, with many Americans expressing outrage over Trump’s Nov. 26 tweet threatening citizenship loss or imprisonment over the burning of the American flag in protest. This move—while carrying no legal weight—is unfounded legally and overtly un-American in value. Indeed, it appears Trump needs a lesson in history and Supreme Court rulings.

While many citizens may not agree with the use of flag burning as protest, that doesn’t remove the legal right to do so. Citizens may feel that destruction of our flag has no purpose under freedom of speech; judicially, however, it is indeed protected.

Outside the Republican National Convention in Dallas in 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in protest of President Ronald Reagan’s policies, according to United States Courts. Johnson was immediately arrested and charged with “desecration of a venerated object,” which violated a Texas statute.

Johnson appealed and in the 1989 case Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court had a 5-4 ruling that declared that flag burning is protected under the First Amendment as a form of “symbolic speech.” The justices reasoned that while the protest of flag burning may be offensive to society, it is not society’s outrage alone that is worth suppressing free speech.

Trump tweeted that, “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag—if they do, there must be consequences—perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!” Unless major political developments occur, the act of flag burning is indeed protected under the U.S. Constitution.

Not only would Trump attempting to jail individuals for burning the flag be unconstitutional, but so would be removing citizenship for the act. The only causes for denaturalization are falsification or concealment of facts during the naturalization process, refusal to testify before Congress, membership in subversive groups and dishonorable discharge from the military, according to FindLaw.

These legal causes for denaturalization apply to an extremely small minority of Americans—and certainly do not apply to those expressing their Constitutional right to freedom of speech. The day when we practice our right to speak freely and are punished for it—especially when our citizenship is on the line—is an incredibly unpatriotic day for America.

Trump’s statement is not just about flag burning—it is about his inability to separate the law from what he wants to do. The policy impulsively suggested by Trump may break strides with his party’s ideals, but it is just another technique of gathering support through “us vs. them” rhetoric.

This blurring of what is actually illegal and what is disliked can be seen with Trump’s senior communication advisor Jason Miller as well, who responded to CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s statement that flag burning is legal by saying, “But Chris, it’s completely ridiculous.”

By simply brewing distrust in the government and the media—and clearly setting a punishment line between those who support him and those who do not—Trump creates a toxic political environment now and for our future.

Late exam period complicates travel, inconveniences downstaters

The last final period for the 2016 fall semester will take place from 6-8:30 p.m. on Dec. 20. With the sun setting around 5 p.m. during this time of the year, it is unsafe for many students leaving for break to make hours-long drives back to their hometowns in the dark and in dangerous, winter weather conditions. As a result, many students prolong their departure until peak holiday travel days—which not only puts a strain on already-stressed students, but also creates hazardous driving situations.

This issue of trying to remain safe while traveling and simultaneously needing to account for academics could be seen with the struggle that many downstate students faced over Thanksgiving break. There was a gridlock traffic advisory for all of Manhattan and its surrounding areas and bridges on Nov. 23.

For any downstate student with classes that ran past 1 p.m. on Nov. 21, leaving after class would mean driving almost completely at night. Compared to Manhattan and Long Island, many highways upstate—including I-90—are not well lit. The presence of animals such as deer on the roads also plays a role in endangering late-night drivers.

I think it is unfair for students to feel the need to choose between a safer, traffic-free ride home and attending crucial final classes before a break.

Instead of taking the available College Express bus, biology major senior Jessica Sammon makes the drive back home because she wants to have her car over break.

“The drive can be really difficult,” she said. “With traffic, it usually takes over seven hours to get to Oceanside [Long Island], and traveling right before the holidays doesn’t help.”

In order to maximize their safety and ease while traveling, some students choose to miss class in order to drive home during daylight. Besides the fact that students might be missing vital class material that is taught on the days before breaks, these students may also miss out on extra credit that may be offered to students for attending the last classes.

“[A professor] offered extra credit to the students who came to the class before spring break,” business administration major senior Shannon Colligan said. “I live in Buffalo, so it wasn’t as big a deal for me, but it would have been a problem if I lived downstate.”

In a study done by Geneseo in 2010, 18 percent of the student body was from Long Island and 7 percent was from New York City. With an estimated one in four students residing in Manhattan or on Long Island in 2010, Geneseo likely still has a high percentage of students who drive five or more hours to get home.

Geneseo professors may want to reward the students who attend the classes that are so tempting to skip, but it gives an unfair advantage to those students who do not have the luxury of living close. While it was the student’s choice to attend college miles away from home, Geneseo should be more accommodating in ensuring the safety of such a significant portion of their student body.

Geneseo should strive to encourage teachers to not place exams on days before breaks. If teachers want to offer extra credit to the students who do attend classes on days leading up to breaks, there should be an alternative provided to those students who choose to get a jump start on the drive home. Making the decision to drive during off-peak times to cut down hours on the road should be understood, and Geneseo should consider starting our school year earlier so our winter break is not so close to the holidays.

It is interesting to consider how Geneseo attracts so many students from downstate and yet they are the students who struggle the most when it comes to traveling home for holidays. Geneseo students from downstate should not have to sacrifice time with their families in order to avoid dangerous traveling experiences or in fear of academic ramifications.

Despite victory, DAPL reflects minority communities’ struggle

After nearly a year of protests by Native American tribes and supporters, the United States Army Corps of Engineers officially announced on Sunday Dec. 4 that construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline will be stopped. While this is an important victory that demonstrates the effective power of the water protectors’ courageous and long-term activism, it is crucial to remember and to examine the U.S.’s systemic neglect of minorities that largely caused this issue in the first place.

Indifference to the health and well being of Native Americans is consistently demonstrated in American society. The 2010 poverty rate at Standing Rock Reservation was triple the national average at 43.2 percent, according to Census Bureau data. This figure runs consistent with 2012 CB research indicating that approximately 25 percent of all individuals identifying as American Indian or Alaska Native in the country are living in poverty. In addition, racist depictions of Native Americans are ingrained in popular culture, from sports mascots to Halloween costumes.

Perhaps the most glaring example of disregard for the dignity of Native American life, however, can be seen with the DAPL’s proposed route that would not only have a high chance of contaminating the local water supply, but would also desecrate Sioux burial grounds––consequences that the U.S. government and many individuals did not seem to view as detrimental enough to immediately stop or to reroute the project.

This flagrant disrespect for human life would not be addressed so casually if it were happening in a predominantly white area. As Standing Rock protester and Sioux elder Faith Spotted Eagle commented in a CNN interview, “What would happen if the Great Sioux Nation decided to build a project through Arlington Cemetery?”

Native Americans aren’t the only minority group whose lives are being threatened by neglect and indifference from mainstream white society––just look at Flint, Michigan. The predominantly black city is still suffering from a contaminated water crisis that has been going on for over 400 days.

With media outlets deliberately stopping coverage of Flint––much like with police brutality against Standing Rock protesters––the continuing extent to which the health and safety of marginalized groups are neglected in favor of actions and narratives that appeal to the white majority is painfully obvious.

Yes, the DAPL being stopped due to peaceful protests from unified Native American tribes is indeed a victory that should be celebrated. But let us not forget that these protestors encountered nearly a year’s worth of violent opposition from law enforcement and civilians alike, with little to no resistance from the government and media.

With the election of President-elect Donald Trump, the lives of marginalized people are arguably in greater jeopardy than they have been in recent years. Look to Standing Rock not only as an example of the power in long-term, peaceful opposition to injustice, but also as a reminder of why becoming actively involved in protests and using whatever privilege you have to support minorities is imperative.

The health and safety of innocent individuals are on the line.

Uber should follow service requirements for future safety

U ber Technologies Inc. is an online transportation company based in the United States. While Uber provides users with an extremely convenient and widely used app, their unethical business practices and less-than-impressive legal track record have recently been called into question.

The company is involved in a case against them in the European Court of Justice, which will determine how the company can operate in nations in the European Union. The company has “come under attack from established taxi companies and some EU countries because it is not bound by strict local licensing and safety rules which apply to most of its competitors,” according to Fortune.

Uber claims to be a digital platform, as opposed to a transportation service, which allows them to wrongfully cut corners in terms of legal and safety requirements. Many Europeans––particularly taxi drivers and other transportation companies––oppose Uber taking advantage of the European legal system’s current inability to regulate apps such as theirs.

U.S. Legal defines a transportation service provider as “any party, person, agent or carrier that provides freight or passage transportation and related services to an agency.” Although Uber claims that it simply connects customers and drivers through their app, they should be held to the legal standards of a transportation service.

The reason for Uber resisting this title is because as a transportation service, they will no longer be able to avoid stricter rules on licensing, insurance and safety, according to Fortune. This does not seem like a valid or logical reason for a company to be able to function outside of this realm of legislation, especially since Uber currently provides rides to individuals in over 400 cities worldwide, according to CNN.

In terms of transportation, an individual’s safety and security when getting in a car with a stranger is more important than a company’s desire to cut corners and increase profit margins. Although many customers turn a blind-eye to the company’s disregard for legal compliance due to Uber’s ability to provide a cheap service, this is exactly why they must be held responsible.

Since Uber can easily hire and vet drivers, they are able to offer lower prices, which often puts local taxi services at a disadvantage. It seems that the only way to even this playing field is for Uber to be viewed legally as a transportation service, which will allow for the industry to encompass online and traditional transportation services alike.

In addition, Uber is no stranger to court cases, with CNN reporting that as of August of 2016, Uber had over 70 pending federal lawsuits and a multitude of others in state courts. A number of these cases were related to “complaints against Uber drivers over assault, rape and car accidents,” according to CNN. Uber’s background checking policy and their level of responsibility for contractors have also been questioned in court.

It seems unlikely that a company that has failed to comply to the ethical and legal standards that are imposed upon their competitors—and that have been questioned numerous times in court—deserves to expand their services before bettering their current ones.

Although the importance of a growing e-commerce industry in Europe is significant, an app-based service should not beat out competitors simply by reaping the benefits of the lack of legal requirements for their type of company.

Uber is undoubtedly a useful app; the decision by the European Court of Justice, however, should hold them to the same standard as other European transportation services. This court case outcome is extremely important, as it will certainly affect other emerging digital platforms and the way they are observed on a legal level.

Underfunded national parks are vulnerable targets for commercial use

It seems that no place in America is safe from capitalism’s tantalizing reach. A recent editorial published by The New York Times condemns the emerging trend of corporations infiltrating state and national parks around the country with marketing schemes. State and national parks are advertising’s new frontier, with previously secluded and protected areas being commercialized for much-needed park revenue. King County in Washington offers companies naming rights and sponsorships for park trails and trees, and also allowed food chain Chipotle to hide 30 replica burritos in the park as a scavenger hunt promotion for its guests.

Even such well-known parks as Yosemite National Park are selling and dedicating park infrastructure to corporations. It is no surprise that the National Park Service now allows this corporate branding in parks, as nature has never been completely free from human corruption, disturbance and greed.

The underlying issue regarding this corporate marketing, however, is why parks need this form of revenue in the first place. Within the past few years, operation funding to state and national parks has slowly declined. Funding for national parks declined by 7 percent—$173 million—between 2010-15, according to National Parks Conservation Association.

The Association claims that the average American citizen pays as much per year for national parks as they would for a cup of coffee.

The iconic Yellowstone National Park and Grand Canyon National Park face budget cuts as well, with Yellowstone delaying its seasonal openings to save money on employee and labor costs. Rocky Mountain National Park public affairs director Kyle Patterson explained that Rocky Mountain has been forced to reduce seasonal employees and to decrease visiting center hours in response to budget cuts.

As students who enjoy the nearby Letchworth State Park and other New York State preserved parks, it is frustrating to see nature being treated as capitalist advertising opportunities. The last thing a visitor wants to see on a trip to a state or national park is Coca-Cola or Michelin marketing amongst the mountains, canyons, trees and wildlife.

National parks and other similar programs are among the first to receive budget cuts in times of economic stress, and this reflects a collective disinterest by Americans in financially investing in conservation efforts––even though national parks are some of the most popular tourist attractions in the country, receiving over 292 million visitors in 2014 alone.

Our nation’s parks deserve to remain untouched and untreated by commercialism and materialism. It is a shame that lack of funding drives parks to generate revenue from such unworthy places.

Social media activism ineffective without physical, inspired effort

With the election of President-elect Donald Trump, the ongoing conflict over the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline and the plethora of other social issues occurring, many young people are feeling frustrated about how to create change in this country. Social media posts and online petitions are some of the most prevalent ways our generation is trying to make our voices heard, and while these methods can be useful, they are mostly ineffective at bringing about real change. Social media is a great platform for spreading awareness, but awareness alone will rarely ever solve a problem. Crucial issues require a lot more time and effort to make change happen. The problem with social media activism is that it often makes people feel as if they’ve done something substantial to help, when in reality they’ve done very little.

Most politicians do not pay much attention to social media protests. Signing an online petition may feel a little more significant for making your voice heard, but this does very little to actually persuade anyone in power.

Politicians pay attention when a large group of people sacrifices their time, energy and money for an issue. Pro-gun lobbyists—led by the National Rifle Association—have successfully lobbied for pro-gun legislation for decades. They may not reflect the majority of Americans who favor stricter gun laws, but they are a fiercely politically active and well-funded group––and therefore, an influential one.

That is the level of organization and commitment that is required to make major changes in the government. Ultimately, our government is biased toward the status quo; unless they are pushed into doing something, they’re unlikely to do it.

Many young people today are highly aware of social and political issues plaguing society, but have a hard time getting their voices heard in government. One of the reasons for this is that American citizens aged 18-34 vote at much lower rates than other age groups, with Americans aged 65 and older voting at higher rates than all other age groups, according to the United States Census Bureau.

Voting is a civic duty and privilege that contributes to a well-functioning democracy—yet, many of us fail to do this simple task. More than half of the 112 anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland failed to vote or to even register to vote, according to USA Today. Politicians must ultimately answer to their voters; if they feel that a specific group mostly isn’t going to vote, then they don’t have to answer to the group’s wishes.

Voting is just one component of enacting social change. Historically, large-scale change has come from grassroots movements of people and not from the government. These movements require a clear purpose, organizational strength and strong political involvement.

It’s critical that our generation focuses less on social media and more on active involvement for the issues they care about. This involves calling your representatives at the state and federal level and getting more involved in local politics. Furthermore, volunteering for organizations that fight for issues is also another way to actively fight for change.

It may be easy to feel as if your singular act of volunteering, donating or calling a representative may not matter, but that mentality is what keeps real progress from occurring. If everyone who wants to bring about change puts in time and effort that can’t be done on a computer, nationwide change can occur.

On questioning the state of democracy in U.S., Colombia

Democracy is hitting roadblocks and experiencing internal conflict in nations around the world. The struggle to maintain balances of power and political representation of citizens in a democracy is clearly demonstrated by current situations in the United States and Colombia. The U.S. electoral college system’s power over the popular vote and the Colombian government’s recent dismissal of a referendum vote exemplify ways in which democracy can be flawed and exploited, even in well-intentioned governments. Colombia’s situation—not unlike the electoral college’s election of President-elect Donald Trump despite former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s popular vote win—begs the question of how democracy can be upheld and respected when a country is so drastically divided over an issue. Additionally, it raises the issue of how democracy is actively being redefined.

The Colombian government has been at war with the rebel group Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia for over 50 years. Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos and FARC leader Rodrigo Londoño publicly shook hands and signed a peace agreement on Sept. 26 to finally end the groups’ decades-long conflict. To implement and ratify the peace agreement, however, Colombian citizens needed to approve it under a referendum vote.

The referendum was expected by Santos and most major polls to be approved by a landslide vote. Colombians, however, shockingly vetoed the referendum, with a slim margin of 50.2 percent disapproval to 49.8 percent approval. Colombian citizens are greatly divided over the peace agreement; supporters want to finally establish peace between the groups, while those who oppose want the Colombian government to give FARC leaders harsher punishments for their alleged war crimes.

It was expected that the Colombian government would revise the peace agreement to appease the opposition—by disallowing FARC leaders to hold political office, for example—and host another referendum vote to update public opinion. The government, however, decided to implement the agreement—despite the public’s direct disapproval of it—without hosting a second referendum vote. Santos ignored the majority of Colombia’s population when installing policies that may have mixed effects on political, economic, social and governmental sectors of the country.

The U.S. supported the peace agreement and pledged to boost U.S. aid to Colombia by nearly 50 percent if it was approved by Colombian citizens, according to The Washington Post. It is interesting that the U.S.—historically involved in many failed or complicated attempts to install democratic governments in Latin America—is financially involved in the Colombian-FARC agreement while experiencing its own conflict of democracy.

These recent conflicts of democratic interest show that the Colombian president—and, similarly, the electoral college in the U.S.—can overrule public opinion on important issues and elections. Additionally, promised financial gain from the U.S. for the approved peace agreement adds suspicion to Colombia’s decision to violate the referendum results.

If presidential powers or a legislative system can change or delegitimize a democratically elected decision, how can a society define itself as democratic? With the infiltration of political elites in the U.S. legislative and political system—and financial incentives for Colombia to disregard a democratic vote—it seems that not even well intentioned government is free from political corruption.

Political systems are not easy to reform or fix. If growing disillusionment with the current status of democracy is used to fuel social movement—such as through recent petitions calling for a recount of the U.S. presidential election—then the power of a population can resist an increasing disregard of basic democratic principles.

Black Friday shopping overshadows family-oriented holiday season

For many, the holiday season revolves around a significant amount of gift giving. This time of year, making an extraordinary effort in order to be kind to one another and to appreciate those we hold dear is seemingly a given. It is with these ideals, however, that college students spend money we do not have to buy gifts for our loved ones. Black Friday is the iconic day when grown adults stampede through the door of a department store—in danger of hurting themselves or others—to save $200 on a television. Like many, I have fallen victim to these enticing annual sales, but I have realized that it is time to say, “Enough is enough.”

Black Friday has slowly transformed from an eight-hour shopping event into a four-day shopping frenzy. It seems that stores open their doors earlier and earlier each year, with “door buster deals” designed to drive in paying customers.

Some companies have introduced special Black Friday operating hours, with some stores opening at 5 a.m. Many stores even open their Black Friday sales on Thanksgiving Day, according to BlackFriday.com, a website dedicated to cataloging the day’s festivities. With the evolution of technology, Cyber Monday was created to make the shopping experience easier and to extend the consumer holiday.

CEOs of successful corporations hold some responsibility for this madness, but it is nearly impossible to blame them alone––they’re appealing to the demands of consumers. Wal-Mart CEO Bill Simon reiterated this idea in 2013, saying, “If the traffic is any indication, [consumers] clearly want to shop on Thursday evening. We’ll provide that for them.”

Executives keep infringing on Thanksgiving––a day for spending time with family and giving thanks––because the consumers let them. A 2016 Mindshare survey found that men were “aiming” to spend close to $420 on Black Friday and/or Cyber Monday shopping, while women predicted spending closer to $250. When coupled with the fact that millions of Americans engaged in Black Friday shopping, the day generates a huge profit. Additionally, 2016 was a record-breaking year in terms of the number of people who turned out for the shopping event.

Online Black Friday sales hit a new high at $3.34 billion this year, with $1.2 billion of that coming from mobile devices, according to TechCrunch. If this trend continues, we may see retailers decide to sell exclusively online on Thanksgiving evening in order to save the labor costs associated with running a store on a holiday.

There is hope for change to this holiday, however, as competition between companies continuously increases. Customers are as informed as ever when it comes to finding the best deals and, in response, companies such as Wal-Mart and Target fight over offering the lowest prices. This leads to lower profit margins and less benefit for the retailers.

Holidays aren’t meant for trampling strangers when busting through the door of Wal-Mart at 5 a.m. Yes, giving gifts makes you seem like a thoughtful person, but the moments that you share with friends and family this holiday season are even more valuable.

Socially-conscious children’s films use artistic platform to educate

Hollywood has always been criticized for trying to engineer American society. For example, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough accused Brokeback Mountain of advancing a “radical [liberal] agenda” in 2005 and Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly said the movie was “about mainstreaming certain conduct.” The criticism extends to animated movies, as well. In a 1999 op-ed piece for his radio show, Vice President-elect Mike Pence wrote, “Despite her delicate features and voice, Disney expects us to believe that Mulan’s ingenuity and courage were enough to carry her to military success on an equal basis with her cloddish cohorts. Obviously, this is Walt Disney’s attempt to add childhood expectation to the cultural debate over the role of women in the military.”

Assuming that such critics are correct in thinking that a number of Hollywood movies tell their stories from a particular, biased perspective—and overlooking the claim that watching a movie can turn people gay—we are left to wonder, first, whether such movies are capable of affecting social change and, second, whether it is somehow improper or inappropriate or even immoral for them to do so. I argue yes to the former and no to the latter.

Current Hollywood pictures provide plenty of material for conspiracy theorists wary of the liberal agenda. Disney’s Zootopia tells the story of a rabbit fighting other animals’ biases in trying to join the police force in a city where predators and prey of many species try to live together in peace.

Similarly, J.K. Rowling took aim at American society with her first Harry Potter spin-off, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Wizards in New York City live under strict rules prohibiting them from befriending or marrying Muggles—people without magic powers—as they tremble in fear of international magical terrorism.

A chief line of criticism against films of this strain is that they advance a liberal agenda, meaning they were created with the conscious purpose of swaying public opinion in a certain direction on a contemporary social issue. These critics find it particularly abhorrent that such movies would be marketed to children, and they stir up anti-Hollywood sentiment with charges of “brainwashing” the younger generation.

Accusations of movies having a particular “agenda” are usually overstated—the most that can be said of the movies is usually that they told their story with a certain moral or perspective in mind. Not only is writing a story from a biased perspective different from writing with an express agenda, but such biases are impossible to avoid.

In general, good artists attempt to reach beyond their own biases in order to reach a deeper truth about their subject, but of course, they can never truly succeed. All artists bring their life experiences and pre-conceived notions to the creative process—just as all audiences do to the viewing process—and it is this subjective position that allows them to create art in the first place.

Do these biases have an effect on society? More often than not, professional writers will laugh at the notion that they are somehow controlling public opinion. Still, a good body of sociological research asserts that popular media have a powerful role in shaping perceptions and forming attitudes. Ironically, the central message of many films accused of liberal bias is that such stereotypes are harmful and must be overcome.

As to whether such biases are ethical, at base they constitute a form of free speech. Stories are a particularly influential form of speech—especially to children—but that is not a reason to boycott or to disparage them. They have a central place in public discourse, and while their limitations should be acknowledged, they should ultimately be embraced for their ability to provide a method for thinking through abstract ideas in a very concrete way.

Bias in art is not something to be disdained or to be avoided. Often, it is the point of art and—more often than not—viewers can learn as much from their own reactions to art as they can from the art itself.