Female military comrades deserve equal rights to male counterparts

When it was first released as military advocacy, Uncle Sam’s “I Want YOU For United State’s Army” became a patriotic icon. Exactly 100 years later, his recruitment has gained a new progressive meaning—now including women as well. 

There are many branches within the army, including military intelligence, engineering, medical corps and infantry, as outlined by Hofstra University. When a non-military citizen pictures the army, they probably imagine the infantry: soldiers lying on the ground with guns. The infantry is the nucleus of the army. Being a combat arms branch, they maintain a constant preparation for combat worldwide. This branch is stoic, treacherous and—in the past—the one that banned women from joining.

“After the Obama administration ordered the military in 2013 to open all combat positions to women, the Army developed gender-neutral performance standards to ensure that recruits entering the infantry were all treated the same,” according to The New York Times. 

This progressive legislation allowed 18 female soldiers to become the first group of women to graduate from Fort Benning’s infantry school in Georgia.

The Obama legislation passed in 2013 was a much-needed step to fostering gender-equality in the military. Assuming that they are prepared and willing, women deserve the right to fight and to have equal access to resources that will help them to achieve their military goals.

Many individuals, however, believe it is necessary to prohibit women from the infantry. They believe that what is the most explicitly dangerous and physically demanding branch—infantry—should only be fit for men due to their masculinity.

This opposition to women fighting in the military points out valid physical concerns, including the fact that women’s bodies are biologically smaller than men’s. This absolutely has an impact on how much weight women can carry and what exercises they can complete. It should not stop women, however, from being allowed to fight.

If standards are not lowered for female soldiers, as the 2013 legislation outlines, and if women can keep up with their male counterparts, there is no reason why women shouldn’t be allowed in the infantry.

Although the physical component is the most common argument against allowing women in the infantry, many critics do not stop there. Others claim that a group of military men with a woman fighting alongside them would shift the dynamic from a militant unit to a group of males competing for a female’s attention.

There are many aspects of this argument that are closed-minded. Firstly, it makes the dangerous assumption that all men in the military are heterosexual and are looking for a romantic partner. It also reinforces the stereotype that men are motivated only by sexual impulses and that when a woman comes along, they feel the need to impress her and fight for her.

It would be incorrect and insulting to both genders to assume that men and women are unable to coexist and overcome physical attraction. It seems that men and women willing to risk their lives on the battlefield would have priorities other than romantic relationships.

Many of the arguments against women in the military seem to be made from blatantly sexist views—not from genuine concern for the men and women in our troops. If infantry standards are kept the same for both genders and if female soldiers are held to the same physical standards as male soldiers, there is no reason women should not be able to fight.

Prisoners value education, deserve the opportunity to learn while incarcerated

View fullsize

Prisoners at the Livingston County Jail exhibit appreciation and passion for learning and highlight the need for education oppurtunities in all prison facilities. (Ash Dean/Photo Editor)

The most powerful tool in the world is knowledge, and when an individual is educated, they can do whatever they set their mind to. Education in the prison systems of the United States is extremely important, and there should be more educational opportunities for inmates while they are incarcerated. 

While touring the Livingston County Jail as part of my time volunteering there, both deputies reported how important the education classes were to the inmates. There, they explained how education classes ranging from OSCA certifications to GDE classes were used as a system of checks and balances, where inmates would have to behave well to attend their weekly classes. 

Caption Hammond at Livingston County Jail stated that the difference between the prisoners and other people was that while we all had both stepped out of the front door, they took a left and the rest of us took a right. 

The prisoners in Livingston County Jail, and all jails, are deserving of an education and should have opportunities available to them.

One aspect of the Livingston County Jail that was impressive was the quality of the classrooms. There were smart boards as well as a large book collection; it was nothing like the jails often pictured on television. This classroom seemed to have a high quality of materials and indicated that the inmate’s education was prioritized.

Some argue that paying for education for prisoners is not fair because they receive a college level education for free. As The Seattle Times states, however, education is a cost-effective way to reduce the crime rate in communities. 

Many of the deputies explained how life inside the prison was drastically different than regular society. In prison, stamps are the highest currency they have. Teaching prisoners how to function in society can help them succeed in a world that feels foreign once they finish their sentence.

Another argument against free education for inmates is that volunteers should not “waste” their time helping criminals readjust into society.

In my volunteering experience at the Livingston County Jail, I can vehemently say it would never be a waste of time. 

When I recorded prisoners reading books to their children, most prisoners were extremely grateful, and you could see the appreciation on their faces. It is never a waste of someone’s time to give an individual a moment of peace.

Education is a right that every human deserves to have—whether they get the chance to receive it in four cement walls or in a regular classroom, everyone deserves to learn. 

It is never a waste to volunteer your time in a prison. Everyone should take a chance and try it. Whether you would teach a language, a certification program or just basic skills, go and see for yourself what an education can do for a prisoner.

Students glorify sleep deprivation, ignore health implications in college

As finals approach, many college students feel there is no way to avoid the dreaded all-nighter—realizing the harm, however, that staying up all night has to a student’s physical and mental health is imperative to breaking this damaging finals week ritual. 

You can care about your grades as much as the next student, but pulling all-nighters is not always the necessary route to success. There are ways to get all of the necessary work done that don’t involve staying up all night. It is possible to wake up early, to stay up late and even to cancel plans with friends. 

It’s hard to juggle clubs, homework, classes, work and a social life in college. Dating goes out the window and Netflix shows remain in your queue for months. It appears that there is no time for completing normal activities, nonetheless sleep. 

Internships and the future are all college students can think about, so many students feel pressured to stay up all night studying for a test; these students think that this will help them to do well, though in reality it causes more harm than good.

When it comes to studying, however, USA Today states that it is psychologically proven that students won’t do well on a test that they have the next morning if they stay up all night trying to take in as much information as they possibly can. 

Cramming is an impractical way to take in academic material. Repeated exposure over time is what helps students remember things. 

When a student’s body is sleep-deprived and they are riding on nothing but coffee and energy drinks to stay awake, they are not only damaging their body, but also robbing it of the one thing it needs to retain information: sleep. 

Her Campus reports that students cannot effectively retain information unless their brains take the time to sleep and recharge.

It is also important to note all the other adverse health effects that sleep deprivation has on the body. These include, but are not limited to, mood swings, weight gain, poorer concentration, unhealthy eating habits, a decline in social skills and poor decision-making. 

These side effects are dangerous and no college student should put themselves at risk. In addition, staying up all night—despite its inevitable health problems—is completely avoidable if students stay on top of their work and organize their schedules. 

Unfortunately, staying up all night to finish a paper or to study for a test has been accepted as a normal part of college life. It has become a sort of bragging technique to prove how dedicated you are to school: if a student pulls an all-nighter, it means that they are more invested in their education than the next student who got their eight hours of sleep. 

Students who stay up all night often see themselves as super-human, when, in fact, they should be admonishing themselves for their lack of time management skills.

Self-care in college is often overlooked, even though it is one of the most important things to do when students’ bodies are under such immense amounts of stress. It is imperative that students stop depriving themselves of sleep and praising others for doing the same.

White House guests unprofessionally disrespect Hillary Clinton portrait

Sarah Palin supports Donald Trump in Iowa. While at dinner at the White House on April 19, Palin posted disrespectful images with Hillary Clinton’s portrait on social media. (Courtesy of AP Photo)

Sarah Palin, Kid Rock and Ted Nugent went to the White House to dine with President Donald Trump on April 19. While they were there, they mocked a portrait of Hillary Clinton. 

Palin posted photos on Facebook with the caption, “A great night at the White House. Thank you to President Trump for the invite!” One of the images depicted the trio in front of Clinton’s portrait. “Nugent is pictured with a thumb-back, ‘get outta here’ gesture,” according to Bustle, “while Palin points to the photo with a look of disapproval. Kid Rock stands there with his arms folded.”

The decision made by the White House guests to take these disrespectful pictures in the first place is immature. There are many important and historical portraits and artifacts in the White House and acting in such a cavalier manner in one of the most respected establishments in the world is ill advised. 

The decision to post them on social media, however, is even more ill-mannered. These pictures were intentionally posted to insult Clinton and to gloat over Trump’s election victory. This cannot be tolerated, and especially not encouraged, by the president.

When Trump was elected, many worried about his unprofessional attitude and this instance proves that there is a pressing cause for concern. 

Clinton’s loss in the 2016 presidential election was only this past year, and while she removed herself from the public eye for a while, she handled her loss with dignity and pride. She focused on her supporters, encouraging them to continue standing for what they believe in.     

“Obviously the outcome of the election wasn't the one I hoped for, worked for, but I will never stop speaking out for common sense benefits that will allow moms and dads to stay on the job," Clinton said to CNN.

Clinton has acted in a professional manner and has done nothing to deserve the public mockery brought on by Palin. Trump’s guests disrespecting her portrait for the world to see on social media, especially such a short time after the election, is distasteful.

Refinery 29 commented on the picture of Palin, Kid Rock and Nungent by saying, “She’s moved on from the election and is looking to the future, but (ironically) the same can’t be said for Trump and his most ardent supporters.” 

In general, insulting a woman who has served in the White House in a myriad of roles—regardless of your political beliefs—is insupportable. Anyone who has dedicated their time to trying to make our country a better place deserves to have their official portrait treated with respect.

Maggie Haberman of The New York Times tweeted in response, “Doesn't matter what the political party is, it's the White House, not a rally, and it's an official portrait, not a cardboard cutout.”

While it is often accepted in our social culture to lightly poke fun at political figures, this was not what Palin and Trump’s guests did. This picture was malicious and posted with the purposefulness of offending Clinton and of aggravating her supporters. 

Considering the current political climate, intentionally disrespecting a woman who has served this country is unacceptable. These individuals should be held accountable by the current administration.

Geneseo funding favors sciences over liberal arts, humanities

With a vote in the future of Western Humanities courses on Wednesday May 3 and a greater re-evaluation of the curriculum on the horizon, it is imperative that Geneseo remembers its mission.

Geneseo must maintain and re-commit to providing a liberal arts education that combines aspects of the natural and social sciences with the humanities. 

Of the 64 SUNY campuses interspersed throughout the state, Geneseo is only one of five colleges—alongside Fredonia, Oneonta, Plattsburgh and Purchase— that explicitly focuses on the liberal arts.

Out of these, Geneseo has the most academically rigorous curriculum devoted to the liberal arts. 

Despite its unique responsibility in offering a public liberal arts education, Geneseo has signaled a shift away from the liberal arts—especially humanities and the arts—over the past decade.

Specifically, Geneseo has allocated millions of dollars over the past 15 years for the construction or refurbishment of buildings such as the Integrated Science Center and Bailey Hall—both buildings that focus almost entirely on natural and social sciences. 

Such disciplines are, of course, essential for a liberal arts education, but while the natural and social sciences departments were being injected with copious amounts of funds, other areas were left behind. 

While Bailey was receiving a $23 million renovation, according to an April 27, 2012 The Lamron article, the administration cut funding to speech-language pathology, computer science and studio art. Similarly, as science students luxuriate in beautifully constructed buildings, history, English and philosophy students languish in decades-old buildings like Welles Hall and Sturges Hall.

A commitment to the liberal arts, of course, does not begin or end with the buildings; this does, however, indicate a concerning funding disparity. This disparity gets wider every day, even outside of Geneseo. 

The SUNY system itself is an organization that has pushed for a shift away from the liberal arts. SUNY Chancellor Nancy Zimpher, an education specialist, will be replaced by engineer Kristina Johnson in September, according to The New York Times. 

While Johnson is a seasoned administrator and will likely serve the system well, her selection represents what many college administrators consider valuable nowadays.

Though SUNY has provided extra funding to Geneseo in past years, it has been to emphasize technical skills more than liberal arts values. A recent example of such funding allocation was when Geneseo received money in 2016 to attract faculty for integrative computational analysis, according to The Lamron.

Again, there is nothing wrong with fields like integrated computer analysis, but funding those fields over the humanities and over the arts detracts from Geneseo’s purpose. 

In order to refocus Geneseo’s mission on the liberal arts, curriculum reforms must occur that place a renewed emphasis on the fine arts and the humanities. 

As it progresses, Geneseo must avoid simply accepting that technical skills are inherently superior to skills in less profitable fields. 

Geneseo, as it exists today, is defined by its liberal arts opportunities. It is the best liberal arts school in the SUNY system, and abandoning that credibility would be a disservice to not only those who want a quality and affordable liberal arts education, but also to Geneseo itself.

Lavender ceremony improves recognition of LGBTQ+ students

On-campus coordinators, mentors and representatives of the LGBTQ+ community officially installed a Geneseo chapter of the Lavender Graduation ceremony for the 2017 undergraduates. 

The ceremony is a great step toward recognizing and appreciating LGBTQ+ students and allies on campus and their achievements, and will hopefully lead to more concrete and influential LGBTQ+ policies and programs.

The Lavender Graduation ceremony is an annual event dedicated to celebrating LGBTQ+ graduates at many different colleges and universities around the country. The ceremony was created by Ronni Sanlo, who was denied entry to her biological children’s graduation ceremonies due to her identity as a lesbian. 

She established the first Lavender ceremony at the University of Michigan in 1995, and over time the event has spread nationwide. Around 50 guests are planning to attend the ceremony, including 10-20 students who will be honored.

Based on the small attendance so far, it is evident that the opportunity to participate in the Lavender Graduation was not widely advertised to all graduating seniors, or other students who may want to go and to support friends. 

In addition to broadening the advertisements and promotion of LGBTQ+ events, Geneseo should focus on more preliminary programs and policies that acknowledge and support LGBTQ+ students throughout their college career. 

Currently, Geneseo’s Coordinator of LGBTQ+ Programs and Services is not a full-time position. Expanding this position and its responsibilities would validate the needs of LGBTQ+ students and would build a more supportive, allied community among faculty. 

It is particularly important to expand LGBTQ+ resources, as recent homophobic, racist and misogynistic hate crimes occurred on campus this school year. 

Additionally, a student petition calling for mandatory Safe Zone training for professors was declined at a recent fireside chat with President Denise Battles.

While there are still measures that need to be taken to create a more accepting community for LGBTQ+ individuals at Geneseo, the Lavender Graduation is a step in the right direction. 

Hopefully this ceremony will encourage all Geneseo students to acknowledge the incredible contributions LGBTQ+ individuals make on our campus and will pave the way for more events like it.

Excelsior Scholarship program fails to address burden of student loans debt

View fullsize

Gov. Andrew Cuomo and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sign the bill for the first free college tuition plan on April 12. Cuomo’s bill aims to help lower income families afford college, but doesn’t address the other excessive costs attending college entails. (Darren McGee/AP Photo)

Debt-free college seemed like an unattainable dream promised by Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Bernie Sanders during his campaign—and with Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s new approved New York State budget, it could stay a dream for many students.

Cuomo’s new tuition program is a less-than-perfect step toward helping future young Americans manage their student debt—if they can afford to pay the more expensive room and board costs.

The Excelsior Scholarship program determines students whose families earn less than $100,000 eligible for full tuition scholarships, according to a Thursday April 13 article in The Lamron. This applies as long as these students are enrolled full-time, take an average of 30 credits each year and live in New York State for a certain number of years after graduation.

Additionally, the cap for family income will grow to $110,000 in 2018 and to $125,000 in 2019, thus including more students in similar income brackets.

This program is not useless, as many high school students from lower class and lower-middle class communities will be relieved of at least some financial burden. 

The specific requirements to give students eligibility are not exceptionally difficult—even the requirement for post-graduate students to live in New York for the same number of years they received free tuition is inconvenient at worst, and reasonable at best. 

From an economic standpoint, it is in the state government’s best interest to make sure their educational investment in students reinvests back into New York itself.

The issue of room and board costs, however, is what worries many New York state students. Room and board costs at the average SUNY school can add up to $10,000-$15,000 per year, according to SUNY’s website.

While proactive students can apply for more scholarships and funding to pay for room and board costs—which are approximately twice as expensive as tuition itself—they will most likely fall back on student loans. 

A student at Geneseo who is required to live on campus freshman and sophomore year—who may already need financial help through the tuition program—could accrue more than $20,000 in student loan debt in just their first two years at college.

It isn’t useful to complain about the cost of college at this stage—it is unfortunately an accepted fact that most college students will suffer with debt for years or even decades after graduation. 

Cuomo’s tuition plan will help cut down those costs, if only by a few thousand dollars in total—which most would agree is better than nothing.

Even with this financial aid, however, college could still be an unattainable goal for students in the targeted income bracket—or even students in higher income brackets—who are not financially supported by their parents. 

The assumption that all parents of high school graduates and college hopefuls voluntarily offer financial aid for either tuition or room and board is unrealistic, and could leave struggling students without the financial help they need.

While the tuition program is a step in the right direction, any eligible students need to be completely aware of how the legislation affects them. 

The excitement about “free college” on social media and in the news is irresponsible, as those who do not read the fine print may not realize there are additional costs that are even more expensive than tuition.

To help the student debt crises, we would need an overhaul of our current higher public education system. In the meantime, we should support new initiatives to support students financially and to broaden the resources for those who still see higher education as an expensive dream.

Critics misinterpret Kendrick Lamar’s politically significant music

View fullsize

Hip-hop artist Kendrick Lamar performs at Coachella on Sunday April 16. Lamar’s music seeks to address racism and to empower listeners to evoke change. (Amy Harris/AP Photo)

Fox reporter Geraldo Rivera said in a video on Pitchfork that musician Kendrick Lamar was “indoctrinating young people” with his music by sending a message that police officers are the enemy and violence is the answer to fighting racism.

In reference to Lamar, Rivera also said, “hip-hop has done more damage to young African-Americans than racism in recent years.” 

These accusations make a large generalization, claiming all rap and hip-hop music embodies this attitude. Rap, as a genre, features a range of topics and attitudes, allowing several types of artists to express themselves in varying ways. 

Rivera is completely misinterpreting the point of Lamar’s music, which has a very complex and hyper-aware message. Lamar’s recent albums—To Pimp a Butterfly and DAMN.—aim to address racism, oppression and violence, questioning where the blame should be placed when it comes to the history of black individuals in America. 

These albums challenge everyone—even Lamar himself—to consider their part in the oppression of black individuals and how we can move forward. In many of his songs, Lamar discusses the idea of inner conflict, even going so far as to call himself the “biggest hypocrite of 2015,” in his song “The Blacker The Berry.” 

This self-questioning clarifies that Lamar does not see himself as the authoritative figure on this subject, and others shouldn’t either; he is just an artist trying to make sense of the complicated world around him.

Rivera’s attack on a black hip-hop artist creating a conversation about important issues is unacceptable. Based on Rivera’s comments, it is clear that they were motivated by Lamar’s race and the ideology behind his music.

“It’s the worst role model, it’s the worst example, it’s the most negative possible message,” Rivera said.

Rivera also claims that, “The real danger to young black men and real brown men now is that their role model will sing about cops being killers and the system being stacked.”

While Lamar’s music is often blunt and unfiltered, that is exactly why it is politically charged and boundary-breaking. The oppression of minorities—particularly black individuals in America—is so deeply inherent in our society. Lamar shedding light on this is imperative. 

Lamar aims to inspire a young black generation, specifically, but also aspires to inform listeners of all ages, races and backgrounds with his music.

Contrary to Rivera’s claims, Lamar has proved to be an incredible role model for fans. Lamar speaks about prioritizing education in high schools; he visits fans, encourages young people to pursue their dreams and performs extensive charity work, according to MTV. 

Lamar recently fought back against Rivera’s comments and featured sound bites of him on his recent album DAMN., causing the controversial comments to resurface. Addressing the negative comments in his music speaks clearly about the message that he is trying to convey.

Anyone who claims that hip-hop music and rappers are “damaging” young black individuals is not only ignorant, but also ridiculous. Instead of criticizing an art form, we should be challenging the deeply engrained racism and oppression in our society that the music is trying to address.

Increased student participation needed at various campus forums

I

t’s no secret that Geneseo students have issues with the way the school is run sometimes. Students have dealt with issues from bureaucratic malaise to lacking resources to the occasional screw found in a piece of pizza or raw food. 

There have also been plenty of times where some college organization looks to make a change, be it Campus Auxiliary Services, the Student Association or the school administration itself. In these attempts of change, students are nowhere to be found.

There have been some exceptions, but more often than not, calls for feedback have gone unheeded. The clearest annual example of this phenomenon is SA. 

Each year, the SA executive board—which is arguably the most powerful body for student advocacy on campus—struggles to get enough students to participate in elections. 

This year alone, four of the eight candidates for the SA board ran unopposed.     Unsurprisingly, only 20 percent of the student body actually voted in the election, according to outgoing SA president senior Michael Baranowski, as cited in a March 30, 2017 Lamron article. 

While it truthfully would take a lot for a student to simply decide to run for the SA board, voting doesn’t take more than a few clicks on the computer. 

With only a fifth of students participating in student elections, SA has less of a mandate to advocate for students, and students’ interests have less of a role in the decisions that the college makes. 

Participating in SA—even by just voting—is one simple way that students can shape the school the way they feel is necessary. Shirking that responsibility leaves the burden to fewer students and makes it much harder to achieve what students really want. 

Of course, sometimes there are issues for students that couldn’t be addressed directly by SA. It’s hard to find a student who has never had an unsatisfactory experience with food services on campus. 

Yet, at the four forums that CAS organized in 2016, a combined total of only 22 students attended any of the forums, according to Tyler Sherman ‘16 cited in a Feb. 11, 2016 Lamron article.

Although many have had plenty of reasons to complain about CAS, probably fewer were committed, causing them to skip all four of the forums. 

For those with legitimate complaints against CAS, the forums would have been an opportunity to push for a change; for those with no qualms, it would’ve been an opportunity to express appreciation with the status quo. 

CAS isn’t the only organization that puts out open forums or seeks out feedback from the campus community. For just about every major position that the college tries to fill, an open forum is held. The most recent major set of open forums was held for the hiring of the provost. 

The provost is essentially the second-in-command to the president, but only a handful of students attended the forums. Instead, various faculty members attended the forum that I went to and questioned the candidate on the issues they held dear. 

Some of those issues likely aligned with student interests, yet there weren’t really any students to question about uniquely student concerns. 

While the opportunity to attend these open forums has passed, there will be more opportunities, which will likely be sparsely attended if current trends remain the same. It isn’t hard to go to a forum, to attend an SA meeting or to respond to surveys. 

There’s only so much that SA, CAS and the administration can do when they don’t know what people want. Geneseo students need to take it upon themselves to shape the school the way they see fit by participating and making their voices heard.

Fox News values reputation over employee rights, safety

It isn’t comforting when the news media are in the news themselves—because it usually isn’t for a positive reason. Fox News is in the spotlight, as they recently fired primetime host Bill O’Reilly amid court settlements involving sexual assault allegations against him.

This firing follows nearly a year after Roger E. Ailes was removed as chairman of Fox News due to similar allegations in the summer of 2016.

On their website, Fox News shared reasoning from their parent company, 21st Century Fox: “After a thorough and careful review of the allegations … the company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel.”

While Fox News did the right thing in the long run by firing O’Reilly, they didn’t do it for the right reasons. The New York Times published an investigative piece about the O’Reilly scandals and subsequent court settlements in April, which launched more bad press about 21st Century Fox. 

This investigative report found that the company stood by O’Reilly during the allegations and settlements.

Fox News and 21st Century Fox do not care about the legitimacy and severity of the allegations against O’Reilly—their motive in letting him go is solely based on saving their own reputation as much as they can.

O’Reilly is one of the company’s most popular personalities. His talk show “The O’Reilly Factor” first aired in 1996, and, according to Fox News, relative content related to the show, “ … [produced] a slew of best-selling books and [found] [O’Reilly] in demand for lucrative speaking engagements.”

O’Reilly was a cash cow for the conservative-leaning network, and this was possibly a motivating factor for sweeping his sexual assault allegations under the rug. Now that the network faces public criticism and journalistic investigations against them, it’s in their better interest to let him go.

It isn’t surprising that Fox’s decision to fire O’Reilly comes after The New York Times’s investigation, and not earlier when the allegations were first brought upon the host. 

That is a clear indication that the network cares more about profits and views than the rights and safety of their employees—something that unfortunately, is unsurprising.

Jenner-Pepsi ad misinterprets police relations with protestors

Pepsi released a “short film” featuring Kendall Jenner on April 4. While the ad gained immediate attention with over 1.6 million views in under 48 hours, almost none of it was positive. The ad has since been removed after the immense wave of backlash and criticism it has received.

The advertisement portrays Kendall Jenner observing a protest. While on-set of a glamorous photoshoot, Jenner notices a march going by with protesters wielding signs with ambiguous statements such as “join the movement.” 

Onlookers begin joining, and eventually Jenner leaves the photoshoot—ripping off her blonde wig, wiping off her lipstick and proudly stepping into the crowd.

The advertisement is corny and in poor taste, but it quickly deteriorates into an offensive and even dangerous message at its climax. 

The protestors approach a line of policemen, as Jenner then gives a knowing smile to a fellow protestor and hands one officer a can of Pepsi. They exchange smiles, and the protest erupts into cheers as the policeman takes a gulp. 

This advertisement is unbelievably tone deaf, and trivializes the unrelenting violence, aggression and oppression that protestors for movements such as Black Lives Matter and Standing Rock have faced. 

Suggesting that if protestors were just friendlier then we would all be able to high-five and share some soda is appalling. The underlying tone of the ad is that we should all just get along—which could be attainable if we were all pretty, white models.

Peaceful protestors in the past few years have been met with militarized response from local police with the use of tactics such as tanks, rubber bullets and tear gas. The idea is that it only takes one brave soul to hand some police officer a refreshing Pepsi to end police brutality and conflict. 

Bernice King, daughter of Martin Luther King Junior, tweeted, “If only Daddy would have known about the power of #Pepsi,” adding an image of her father being shoved by a police officer. 

It’s nearly impossible to open a newspaper or to turn on the television without hearing about violent protests and the fierce tension between police officers and protestors. How Pepsi managed to ignore all of this and produce such a thoughtless ad that lacks even the most basic knowledge of current events is unimaginable. 

Using the struggle of protestors and marginalized groups to serve capitalist goals is absurd. More infuriating is Jenner’s ability to be unaware of how blatantly offensive the displays of privilege are in this ad.

In a public statement from Pepsi, they wrote, “We are removing the content and halting any further rollout. We also apologize for putting Kendall Jenner in this position.”

The fact that they felt Jenner was an innocent bystander in this is even further insulting. Additionally, a source close to Jenner told The Hollywood Reporter, “She’s only 21 and she’s very sensitive. This has been very painful and embarrassing for her.” 

Quite frankly, Jenner should be embarrassed. Her age and her apparent sensitivity do not excuse her from this criticism. 

Most college-aged people are acutely aware of the injustices going on in our society, and as a public figure Jenner is even more responsible for staying aware of the world around her and for using her voice wisely. 

Hopefully, this backlash will be a learning opportunity for Jenner and will allow her to see the importance of understanding her own privilege and to gain some much-needed empathy for protestors and those subjected to police violence.

Trump’s impulsive response to Syria attack exemplifies poor foreign policy

President Donald Trump receives a briefing about a chemical attack in Syria one day before he called for a missile attack on the country. Trump’s decision to attack Syria foreshadows potentially dangerous relations with other countries in the future. (Shaelah Craighead/AP Photo)

In the pre-dawn hours of Friday April 7, the United States launched 59 missiles at a military airport in Syria. The attack was condemned by somepeople, like Republican representative Justin Amash of Michigan, and widely condemned both at home and abroad. 

This missile strike was a direct response to the poisoned gas attack on Syrian people on April 4, which killed dozens of civilians.

The perpetrator of the initial chemical attack is yet to be confirmed, though the U.S. speculates it was the work of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's military. 

Syria has been host to a brutal civil war spanning the last six years, during which a rebel anti-Assad group first armed themselves against the unchecked militarized political faction. The group later conflated with Islamic State terrorist groups, resulting in years of endless violence, mutilation and displacement propagated by extremists, regime-loyal forces and anti-government rebels.

In an article published by the Fars news agency that harshly criticizes the U.S.’s actions, Iran's leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei states, "What Americans did was a strategic mistake, and they are repeating the same mistake done by their predecessors."

Tracing America's relation to the conflict in Syria renders a muddy picture. The “Arab Spring" showed the world how grassroots uprisings of rebel factions proved successful in recent years in toppling oppressive regimes.

For example, failed uprisings against democratically elected—though still oppressive—governments occurred in Turkey, suggesting that civil conflict in the Middle East is still a more complicated web than the U.S. acknowledges or understands. 

This missile strike was ordered directly by President Donald Trump and was executed without approval by Congress. This makes the attacks in violation of constitutional checks and balances, and serves as a hint of the direction that the new commander-in-chief will take in addressing conflict abroad.

Americans hopeful for a hint of tactical forethought or considered intentionality regarding this military action will be disappointed for now it seems.

For an administration that has already pledged to slash funding to programs—which would provide relief to the war-torn country—an intense military retaliation against Syria seems to be a statement of power that reminds armed regimes that unchecked use of force will not go unchecked by the U.S. for long. 

Of course, the irony should be clear when such a retaliation is performed with absolutely no hesitation or deliberation by our country's own democratic process. 

There are other, less violent ways in which the U.S. could provide aid to the Syrian people caught in the crossfire between the government and the extremist-influenced rebel factions. Work to ensure safe zones, travel passages for relief workers and the protection of hospitals is vital. 

Unfortunately, whether it leads to a legitimate declaration of war by the U.S. or Syria, the Friday April 7 attacks are a sad indication of where our country's foreign policy is at now: in the hands of a reactionary, militarily inexperienced demagogue. 

Americans who voted for Trump because he promised to not get the U.S. involved in conflict should take note: more money is spent on our country's military than anything else, making our expenditures on non-militant relief and humanitarian work small change for a country with our outsized influence and resources. 

As many protestors of Friday April 7's attack have said, the fighting in Syria and throughout the Middle East will continue. Here's to hoping the U.S. starts to consider more solutions other than war.

Celebrity mothers courageously raise awareness of postpartum depression

View fullsize

Model and mother Chrissy Teigen shared her struggles with postpartum depression in an essay in Glamour to fight back against the negative stigma surrounding the disorder. (Courtesy of Creative Commons)

Postpartum depression is something many new mothers face, but is rarely spoken about. Celebrity mothers recently broke their silence about their experiences with postpartum depression, and it’s a step in the right direction for creating the kind of public support and acceptance those struggling with this condition deserve.

Postpartum depression is defined as “moderate to severe depression in a woman after she has given birth … It may occur soon after delivery or up to a year later. Most of the time, it occurs within the first three months after delivery,” according to the United States National Library of Medicine. 

Some noteworthy symptoms of postpartum depression are irritability, thoughts of death or suicide, being unable to care for yourself and your baby, being afraid to be alone with your baby or having little interest in the baby.

Roughly 950,000 women experience postpartum depression after giving birth each year, according to postpartumprogress.org. This disorder is one that is rarely addressed by the mainstream media, which unjustly causes women to feel ashamed of themselves. 

Recently, many celebrity mothers have been using their influence to speak out about pregnancy and motherhood in general—the good and the bad.

Model Chrissy Teigen is a prominent public figure and role model for women. She seems, according to Glamour, to have it all: she’s “a Sports Illustrated cover girl, a New York Times best-selling cookbook author, a host of the Emmy-nominated TV series ‘Lip Sync Battle’ and the soon-to-be designer of a fashion line with Revolve.”

What many didn’t know about Teigen, however, was that she suffered from postpartum depression after giving birth to her daughter.

In an essay for Glamour, Teigen said: “I had everything I needed to be happy. And yet, for much of the last year, I felt unhappy. What basically everyone around me—but me—knew up until December was this: I have postpartum depression.”

Teigen explored the complex emotions that accompany postpartum depression, while also addressing the physical changes in her body that contributed to the disorder.

She continued on, saying, “I looked at my doctor, and my eyes welled up because I was so tired of being in pain … My doctor pulled out a book and started listing symptoms. And I was like, ‘Yep, yep, yep.’ I got my diagnosis: postpartum depression and anxiety.”

Teigen—someone who appears to be a happy, stylish and excited mother—sharing her battle with postpartum depression is imperative for awareness of the condition. Her ability to open and share her story with other mothers and the world sends an important message that postpartum depression isn’t something to be ashamed of. 

The negative stigma surrounding postpartum depression is extremely detrimental to women who suffer from it and to the families who watch their loved ones suffer. 

Celebrity mothers, like Teigen, sharing their stories will give many people hope and help society realize that mothers, regardless of their struggles, are strong. It is important that stories of postpartum depression continue to be shared and brought to the public eye in an accurate way.

Teigen closes her letter by saying, “I’m speaking up now because I want people to know it can happen to anybody and I don’t want people who have it to feel embarrassed or to feel alone.” 

These are wise words that everyone should take into consideration.

Image of Putin in drag challenges normalization of homophobia

View fullsize

Russian President Vladimir Putin is known for his homophobic policies. An image of Putin dressed in drag has been circling the Internet in an effort to defy these policies. (Alexei Nikolsky/AP Photo)

An image of Russian president Vladimir Putin dressed in drag has clogged every outlet of the Internet—and for all the right reasons. 

Russia has a track record of civil rights violations. Russia has both banned images of LGBTQ+ relationships under the guise of “propaganda” in 2013 and has proposed a bill that fines members of the community for showing public displays of affection. It’s obvious that Russia needs to become a more accepting nation for the sake of its citizens.

The image of Putin in drag makeup with a rainbow background was a direct protest against Putin’s anti-gay regime. The image was banned for implying that Putin may be gay or might support LGBTQ+ members that exist in the country he’s supposed to protect. A wild idea, truly. 

Homophobia in Russia is nothing new. The law banning homosexual “propaganda” in 2013 passed under the claim that it protects children and maintains traditional Russian values. If this propaganda is perpetuated by anyone, they may receive heavy fines or even jail time.

The image of Putin in drag first graced the Internet in 2013 as a response to the law when “gay rights protesters were beaten and arrested,” according to The Washington Post. Since then, countless images of Putin in makeup, drag or other forms that might imply a deviation from heteronormativity have surfaced. 

But it was only after such images were made illegal in Russia that it became a rallying cry around the world to stop homophobia. 

This image was banned alongside others that portrayed Putin in Nazi attire. This image of Putin in drag is somehow as bad as comparing him to Hitler. At this rate, it seems that this might be the path Russia follows as Putin shuts down websites that oppose him.

Totalitarianism is defined by a government putting limits on individual freedom, and any dissent toward the government is made illegal. 

Though there are many other facets that make up a totalitarian form of government, these two aspects of limiting the rights of the citizens are only the start of something that can become much worse. And it’s already gotten incredibly bad.

Chechnya, a federal subject of Russia that is largely Muslim, has also flooded the news for the worst possible reason: the mass incarcerations of hundreds of gay men that are then allegedly abused and murdered in Chechen prisons. 

When confronted, spokespeople of the Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov stated that these allegations are untrue because homosexuality doesn’t exist in the Muslim religion, so “you cannot detain and persecute people who simply do not exist in the republic,” according to The Independent.

There’s no fighting that argument. 

This and countless other reasons are why the image of Putin in drag is so important. Members of the LGBTQ+ community are being silenced, denied, arrested, beaten, abused, exiled and murdered for no reason.

If Putin isn’t going to allow critique of his presidency, then it’s up to us to do everything we can to fight the normalization of homophobia at all costs, even if it’s just “sharing” an image online. This is a defiance against the silencing of hundreds of people in order to raise awareness against the unjust laws of the Russian government.

Geneseo needs more coursework relating to Islamic world

T

he interest that many Geneseo students and faculty have expressed in a more culturally diverse curriculum is well-documented. 

More professors that specialize in non-Western subject matter seem to be in high demand across disciplines, and many have called for the Curricular Working Group to consider a shift away from the “Western” in Western Humanities, including a Lamron columnist on Thursday April 6. 

These requests should be considered in the coming years, as the administration looks to make curriculum changes. In doing so, Geneseo must also make a concerted effort to have more classes that concern the Islamic World. 

The Islamic World could be defined loosely as a region ranging from Spain and Northern Africa, to Pakistan and Southeastern Asia. The Islamic World has been home to billions of people, more than a thousand years of rich history and a plethora of complex cultures. While this definition includes some facets of Islamic doctrine, it is not exclusively defined by theology any more than the West is defined by Christian theology. 

To its credit, Geneseo has recently made some faculty hires who specialize in the Islamic World, including assistant professor of history Megan Brankley Abbas in Fall 2015 and a new specialist in the Middle East for the political science department starting in Fall 2017.

Both are eminently capable professors by all accounts—but they can only cover so many courses in their own departments. Departments of English, philosophy, sociology, art history and geography could all add faculty or courses to better include studies of the Islamic World. 

As a college with limited resources, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to question the need for more courses on the Islamic World. Some might similarly argue that studies of the region wouldn’t fit that well with studies of the rest of the world already at Geneseo. 

Both critiques likely come from the belief many people have that the West and the Islamic World are inherently separate.

The division between the West and the non-West is not nearly as pronounced as some make it out to be. Many Muslim scholars have had real and direct influences on foundational understandings of Western texts in a detailed history of cultural diffusion and exchange. 

Eleventh century Persian scholar Ibn Sina (Avicenna) is known as an incredibly important figure in the history of Western medicine, with major contributions to astronomy, geology, psychology and other fields. 

Twelfth century Andalusian scholar Ibn Rushd similarly made detailed translations and analyses of Aristotle’s writings, which were then translated back into Latin during the European Renaissance and enlightened many Western scholars. 

The work of these scholars, as well as others, has fundamentally affected the way that the rest of the world understands itself and is clearly worth studying. 

Increasing efforts to teach about the Islamic World would also fit into the values of learning, creativity, inclusivity, civic responsibility and sustainability that Geneseo mentions with its mission statement. 

Such a large region—with impacts on the history, culture and current political discourse of the West and the world—should receive more than the representation that it has received at Geneseo. 

Of course, some enterprising professors and departments have taken it upon themselves to emphasize the importance of texts, like the Quran or scholars like Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd—but there needs to be some larger institutional change. 

As different departments look toward restructuring and as the college looks toward curricular change, faculty and students should consider the importance of recognizing the Islamic World through greater scholarship.

Trust in technology reflects unhealthy consumption habits

At this stage in our society’s technological development, it is common knowledge that our cell phones and social media accounts collect and record our personal data and information.

 Sites such as Facebook monitor users’ searches to collect data on their assumed interests and hobbies for advertisers to buy. Recent controversies surround Apple iPhones, as advertisements on Facebook and Instagram coincidentally appear after users have in-person discussions about them. 

It begs the question—are our devices listening to us, and if so, why do we put so much trust into them?

Reporters for the BBC investigated these claims and published findings in March 2016. While they couldn’t confirm that cell phones were always listening to their users, they did hire cybersecurity experts to write a prototype app that can listen to users.

Reporters spoke through a microphone, and the prototype app could identify key words within their speech. If applied to cell phones, the app would be able to send this information to advertisers. 

Their conclusion was that it could be possible for companies such as Google to use similar codes to listen to their users without their awareness.

This theory is like our musings about government surveillance, what we often refer to as “Big Brother.” Potential surveillance by our cell phones is a familiar sentiment, one we could refer to as “Best Friend”—surveillance by a device we are mentally, emotionally and socially attached to despite our knowledge of its risks and flaws.

But the issue is greater than “Big Brother.” With the Internet constantly at our fingertips, the way people think seems to be shifting and attention spans are decreasing. In an essay by Nicholas Carr from The Atlantic, he writes, “My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles.”

While we are actively aware of the fact that potential breaches of privacy exist and that our personal information is sold to advertisers, we continue with our daily habits and attachments to our devices. 

It is imperative that we remain cognizant of our cell phone and social media usage because it may be affecting us more than we think.