Editorial

While working at the IDS, I let my curiosity run free as I researched and wrote weekly opinion editorials about everything from international affairs to bathroom stalls.

Lessons the United States can learn from Brexit

published Jun 26, 2016

The United States watched with morbid fascination as one of its closest allies essentially self-imploded on Friday, the 24th of June. As interesting as it is to witness from across the pond, the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union can serve as a look into the future for the U.S.

The U.S. is dangerously close to following the U.K. down its path into uncertainty. Hopefully, by examining its mistakes, the U.S. can prevent its own.

The campaign to leave the EU stemmed from concerns that rural and working class people had about their economic security. When left unacknowledged by London or the EU, their fear was hijacked and misdirected by a campaign that convinced its supporters xenophobia and isolationism were the solutions to their problems.

They were sold false promises about the benefits of leaving, which were revealed by the campaign to be unsustainable immediately after the vote.

They were persuaded to vote against the interest of their children and their country with false promises of economic security through independence. And it came as a surprise, because no one thought they would really do it. Does any of this sound familiar? Let’s take a look at how that worked out for them.

Prime Minister David Cameron has resigned, and it’s looking like the leader of the rival party, Jeremy Corbyn, will be losing his job, too. The EU is demanding the U.K. exit as soon as possible, and Washingtonhas released a statement saying the U.K. will go “to the back of the queue” in negotiating trade deals with the U.S.

The London Economic tweeted the U.K. fell from being the fifth to the sixth largest economy in the world and was overtaken by France. The value of the pound dropped radically and the DOW fell 600 points Friday. The City of London, which is the financial epicenter of Europe, will suffer huge losses as its trade relationships with the rest of the EU are jeopardized.

On top of all this, Scotland and Northern Ireland show signs of trying to stage their own Brexit, with Scotland already in discussions to maintain a spot in the EU.

So the British people got “their country back,” but lost economic security, foreign relationships in Europe and their own internal political structure in one day. And that is not even touching on personal consequences such as the sudden uncertainty of millions of jobs or citizens of immigrant descent whose view of their home must now be irrevocably changed.

And the concerns of the rural and working class people still have not been addressed. If anything, their mobility and access to opportunity have been severely limited.

As former Labour Party leader Ed Miliband tweeted Friday, “If one thing comes out of this calamity it must be to address deep pain so many feel about their jobs, wages, chances, ignored for too long.”

In both the U.S. and the U.K. and all around the world, the economic benefit of the few have led the rest of us into uncertain and difficult times.

It is the job of our legislators and leaders to address our concerns, but it is our job as voters to recognize the true cause and to resist the temptation of scapegoats.

The U.S. and the U.K. have many differences, but the negative impact of xenophobia, isolationism and lies are universal. Ignoring the concerns of rural and working class people only forces them to fall back on these tactics.

If the number of signatures on the petition for a second vote is any indication, many voters in the U.K. wish they could go back in time, but for us, they have provided a necessary and humbling look into one version of our future. Now it’s our job to avoid it.

Sexism in politics, surprise, surprise

Published Apr 10, 2016

As the Indiana primary gets closer, the decision about who to vote for becomes more and more crucial.

For the Democratic race, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have the party so polarized everyone has an opinion and every delegate counts.

A Hart Research Associates survey found 7 percent of Sanders voters could see themselves voting for Trump and 8 percent gave Trump a positive likeability rating.

These numbers are small, but they are still baffling to me.

I believe there are a lot of valid and unavoidable reasons not to vote for Clinton, and I don’t plan to.

However, there are also some completely invalid reasons to vote against Clinton — namely, that she is a woman.

Political science professor Dan Cassino of Fairleigh Dickinson University conducted a survey that asked American men about their spouse’s income and whether they preferred Clinton to Trump.

Half of the survey pool was asked whether their spouse made more money than them before being asked about their political preferences, and half were asked at the end of the survey.

Cassino found the majority of American men said they preferred Trump to Clinton only when the men were asked about their spouse’s income before they were asked about candidate preference.

Cassino attributed this to “the threat to gender roles.”

Men preferred Trump only after they were reminded of the threat to societal norms Clinton as president would supposedly represent.

For some, this survey shows the subconscious desire to adhere to misogynistic societal expectations is prevalent in voting behavior, and that is unacceptable.

It also questions other conclusions the public has drawn about Clinton and whether they have sexist undertones.

One of the biggest reasons people dislike Clinton is that 
she lies.

This is and has always been a huge character flaw for most politicians, but it’s a criticism that has stuck to Clinton more firmly than her opposers.

Women being depicted as liars who can’t be trusted is so prevalent in our society it almost isn’t worth explaining.

The clichés of the femme fatale to the biblical vilification of Eve to the harmful stereotype of false rape victims are the most easily identifiable examples of this ludicrous assumption about women.

Its prevalence in this election can’t be denied when you look at the facts.

According to the Pulitzer-Prize-winning organization Politifact, 50 percent of Clinton’s fact-checked statements are “True” and “Mostly True,” while only 14 percent are “False” and “Pants on Fire,” the lowest fact-check rating.

Compare this to President Obama, who ranks at 48 percent and 14 percent, respectively, or Sanders, at 49 percent and 15 percent, respectively.

Ted Cruz’s statements are 22 percent “True” and “Mostly True” and 38 percent “False” and “Pants on Fire,” which is pretty bad but still better than Trump. Trump’s statements have been ruled 8 percent “True” and “Mostly True” and 60 percent “False” and “Pants on Fire.”

So if you are thinking of dumping the Democratic party for Trump because you can’t stand Clinton’s lies, maybe you should take a closer look at your own gender bias.

There are a lot of valid reasons not to vote for Clinton, and I support anyone who expresses them.

I don’t support thinly veiled sexism or stereotypes about women in power. And I don’t support anyone voting for Trump.

And the winner is...white men

Published JAn 20, 2016

Last year, the Academy Awards came under fire for not being diverse enough in their nominations, inspiring the hashtag #Oscarsowhite. Unfortunately, the Academy still hasn’t learned its lesson.

This year, there were no people of color nominated for major acting awards. Alejandro G. Iñárritu, director of “The Revenant,” was the only person of color nominated for best director.

He was also the only person of color nominated for best director last year, for “Birdman.” Both movies star white men.

“Straight Outta Compton”, a movie starring and directed by people of color depicts a huge moment in black culture only received a nomination for Screenwriting. The screenwriters, named Jonathan Herman and Andrea Berloff, are both white. Creed, a movie starring Michael B. Jordan, was written and directed by the African American Ryan Coogler. The only nomination that this movie received was for Sylvester Stallone, reprising his previous Oscar nominated role of Rocky Balboa.

The Oscars are supposed to reward the best work in movie making. It is one of the highest achievements in the entertainment industry. It is easy to hope the Oscars stand for achievement and that the Academy rises above racial boundaries and judges based on the art.

However, looking at this ballot, it’s clear that that isn’t true. What the Oscars are telling us instead is that only art made by white people is worthy of commendation.

But the problem isn’t only with the Academy. The sheer number of movies made by white men versus minorities guarantee the majority of nominations will go to white artists. As Viola Davis eloquently said during her Emmy acceptance speech, “You can’t win awards for roles that aren’t there.”

The entertainment industry, much like most industries in this country, is stacked against people of color reaching achievement within them. This has been a problem since the industries very beginning.

In 1956, Variety asked why there weren’t better roles for black actors, and now, decades later, we are still asking the same question.

Instead of attempting to reflect the reality of diversity in the United States in 2015, the entertainment industry clings to the same white actors, actresses and directors. The industry clings to the cash cows of the previous seasons, and it uses their success to establish a cinematic culture between the high and low.

The real divide, however, is not between high and low, but between white and color.

By refusing to incorporate people of color into the award class of movie making, Hollywood does the rest of the country a disservice.

American culture is tied to the movies that we watch. Hollywood, despite its faults, is one of the binding elements of our culture that we all strive to identify with, and look to as a reflection of our lives.

To exclude people of color leaves them out of this culture and gives validity to those in this country that believe they should be excluded.

If these roles exist, people will watch them. Artists of color exist and are capable of Oscar-worthy performances. They have to be given the chance, and their achievements have to be recognized when they are.

To continue to exclude people of color deprives, not only those individuals, but the whole nation of 
exceptional talent.

Snubbed by the Oscars

Once again, the Academy Awards have failed to nominate any people of color for a major acting category.  Here are some of the biggest snubs and similar roles by white actors that did garner a nomination from the Academy over the years.

Michael B. Jordan

Michael B. Jordan reinvigorated the classic Rocky franchise for a new generation with his role as Apollo Creed’s son in “Creed”. Jordan has been praised for his previous work in “Fruitvale Station” (2013) and “Chronicle” (2012).

Last year he responded to negative responses to his casting as the Human Torch in “The Fantastic Four” in an editorial for Entertainment Magazine: “Sometimes you have to be the person who stands up and says, ‘I’ll be the one to shoulder all this hate. I’ll take the brunt for the next couple of generations.’ I put that responsibility on myself.”

White counterpart - Sylvester Stallone received a Best Actor Oscar nomination for the lead role in the original “Rocky”. He has also received a Best Supporting Actor Nomination for “Creed.”

Will Smith

Will Smith, a household name with considerable box office draw, has been nominated for Best Actor twice before for “Ali” and “The Pursuit of Happyness”. In “Concussion”, he plays a doctor who discovers the detrimental effect of concussions on pro athletes. Smith’s wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, has claimed that she will boycott the Oscars because of their failure to recognize achievements of black artists, including her husband.

White counterpart - Brad Pitt received a nomination for his role in “Moneyball” (2012), a movie based on the true story of how one man changed the way we view the national pastime of baseball. He has two previous nominations, and is nominated again this year for “The Big Short.”

Oscar Isaac

Oscar Isaac is a character actor drawing attention this year for his performance in sci-fi movies “Ex Machina” and “Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens.” In “Ex Machina,” Isaac plays a multimillionaire CEO who has withdrawn from the public to live out a Dr. Frankenstein complex. Entertainment Weekly called Isaac’s performance “delicately nuanced,” something that he “is quickly making a habit of” giving.

White counterpart - A genius with ambiguous morality who focuses more on his relationships with technology than with real humans is usually Oscar bait. Jesse Eisenberg received a nomination for his role as Mark Zuckerburg in The Social “Network” (2010), and this year Michael Fassbender has received nomination for Best Actor for “Steve Jobs.”

Straight Outta Compton

The N.W.A. biopic was a cultural phenomenon this summer, inspiring an Instagram filter and bringing the political message of the 80s rap group back to the forefront of public consciousness.

“Straight Outta Compton” featured a mostly black cast, including O’Shea Jackson Jr. in the role of his father, original N.W.A. member, Ice Cube. F. Gary Gray, a friend of group members Dr. Dre and Ice Cube, and South Central Los Angeles native, directed the film. In Rolling Stone, Gray called it “the most important movie I’ve ever done.”

White counterpart - The only nominations for the biopic went to its two white screenwriters Andrea Berloff and Jon Herman. Usually, musical biopics equal acting nominations or sound mixing. “Walk The Line” a biopic of country singer Johnny Cash, earned a Best Actor and Best Sound Mixing nomination, as well as a Best Actress win for Reese Witherspoon.

The Penis Protest

Published Oct 13, 2015

A lot of people have been wondering how to address the problem this country has with gun violence on college campuses. It’s undeniable that something must be done, but the conversation remains stagnant on the issue of guns as protection versus guns as problems. To absolutely no one’s surprise, Texas has sided with the 
pro-gun campaign.

Texas will enact the “campus carry” law that allows people with weapons licenses to bring concealed firearms into any campus facility Aug. 1, 2016. This bill will go into effect on the 50th anniversary of University of Texas’ campus massacre, where Charles Joseph Whitman locked himself in a university tower and fired on students below. From this tower, he killed 16 students and wounded more than 30 others.

This campus carry law isn’t particularly new or revolutionary. Colorado, Wisconsin, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon and Utah already allow concealed weapons on their campuses.

What is unexpected is the reaction from some of the students at the University of Texas. Some students have planned a Campus Dildo Carry protest, where students come to class with vibrators, dildos and other phallic objects hanging from their backpacks.

The purpose of the movement is draw attention to the ridiculous double standard of desensitization to violence and oversensitivity to 
sexuality.

UT student Jessica Jin, an organizer of the event, called into question the set of ethics that is stricter on penis-shaped objects than guns. “The state of Texas has decided that it is not at all obnoxious to allow deadly concealed weapons in classrooms, however it does have strict rules about free sexual expression, to protect your innocence,” she wrote on Facebook.

I have to admire the humorous protest style that not only calls attention to the student body’s discontent about policies that directly affect their safety, but also highlight the ridiculous set of ethics.

The demonization of sexuality and glorification of violence that is frequently depicted in the media takes on real life consequences with policies like this. It is a common argument for pro-gun activists that having more guns will prevent massacres from happening because it will increase victims’ abilities to protect themselves. The problem with this is the culture of danger it creates. When anyone could have a gun, it doesn’t make everyone else feel safe. It escalates paranoia.

One professor at UT has already resigned out of fear for his own safety. More than 280 professors have signed a petition claiming the campus carry law was a “direct assault on our free speech rights.”

The University of Texas System Chancellor William McRaven, a former Navy SEAL, and one of the biggest opponents of this law, gives the best answer for why more guns doesn’t equal a safer environment. Drawing on his own experience, he says people who aren’t trained to handle a hostile environment will not react predictably when being shot at.

But Navy SEALs and campus massacres can’t stop Texas from allowing concealed weapons on campus. Perhaps the only response left is a protest that can recognize the backwards set of priorities that is willing to see more harm in phallic plastic than it does in guns.

We shouldn’t have to question IU

Published feb 8, 2016

IU has a sexual assault problem.

IU Bloomington’s Community Attitudes and Experiences with Sexual Assault Survey found that 17 percent of undergraduate women had experienced attempted or completed penetrative sexual assault while at IU. That’s one in six undergraduate women on this campus. In 2012, IU was fourth in the nation for forcible sexual assaults .

Now, IU’s own title IX director, Jason Casares, president of the Association for Student Conduct Administration, has been accused of sexual assault of his colleague, Jill Creighton.

College campuses in general have an unimpressive history of dealing with the sad reality of sexual assault. It is even more disturbing to know one of our coordinators is under investigation for the crime he is supposed to defend against.

The press may never have all the necessary evidence to say what happened that night without reservation. This is often the case for sexual assault.

We do know something happened that could be construed as sexual assault by the victim. We know Creighton was drinking and said she felt Casares took advantage of her.

The court of law requires something it almost never gets in cases of sexual assault. It is because of that reality we must plan for the worst. It is IU’s job to make sure students can trust their administration.

As a student on this campus and as a woman, I believe if someone is going to stand as a judge against sexual assault, there cannot be a question of their understanding of what consent is and the destruction that results from sexual assault.

If I can’t expect the person making decisions about how sexual assault is treated on this campus to be clear of suspicion, then I can’t trust the University to protect me.

While there is still a question of his violence towards women, he should remain suspended from his position.

This question may not have ever been brought to the attention of the campus if not for Creighton coming forward on Twitter.

In many cases, victims of sexual assault feel they can’t tell their story for fear of being vilified. The media’s immediate reaction often is to doubt and blame women. No one can forget the Steubenville, Ohio, case in which commentators lamented the tragedy of the young rapists’ lives being ruined.

And yet, as dangerous and fickle as the court of public opinion can be, sometimes it is the only court sexual assault victims have left to turn to.

At that point, it is no longer just about justice for one crime, but frequently about preventing another, as well as adding to the exhaustingly long narrative of injustice to sexual assault victims.

It doesn’t matter how the question was raised, just if it is being answered.

As a student on this campus, I would rather know if I can trust the people in charge of combating the serious sexual assault problem at IU. I would rather there be no question.

Being a woman shouldn’t cost more

Published nov 9, 2014

The finance ministry in France has made a decision to investigate the “pink” tax, or why women pay more money for practically identical products. This investigation was kick-started after a petition was circulated that garnered 30,000 signatures.

The United States should take a look at France’s move toward pricing equality and follow suit.

A French women’s group called Georgette Sand exposed price inequality with a Tumblr showing a series of male and female products side by side. Those with the illustrious pink color were priced more.

Products ranging from deodorants to rubber gloves to backpacks are all being priced higher for no discernible reason other than the shift in consumer from male to female. This prompted the French Secretary of State of Women’s Rights Pascale Boistard to tweet, “Is Pink a luxury color?”

In France, women, on average, earn 14.8 percent less than men in the same job, according to a CNBC report earlier this year. Then, tacked on to this inequality, they have to pay more at the drugstore for identical products.

Economic equality is hitting French women from all sides, and it would almost be surprising, except that the U.S. has been slowly and ineffectually combating this same problem for years.

In 1996, California found gendered pricing was costing women $1,351 extra a year and banned it. In 2010, Consumer Reports asked different companies why products were marked higher when marketed toward women. They came up with a bunch of easily disproved reasons, such as a difference in formula, despite the same ingredient percentages being readily available on the back of each product.

One shaving cream company said the price hikes were because women had inadvertently shown preference for features that cost more, such as cans that were tall and thin instead of short and fat. How they decided that women prefer this, and why this would cost more, is still unclear.

Women haven’t asked for these taxes, just like women don’t get paid less because they don’t work as hard. Women get paid less and then are forced to spend more on products that society tells them they need.

It’s just institutional inequality at work again, and it’s about time people start getting called out for it. France’s investigation and California’s ban are good starts, and hopefully, one day we can take it all the way.

As for now, in response to Boistard’s tweet, pink continues to be more of a burden than anything else.

No longer the idiot’s lantern

Published march 25, 2014

There is a stigma that comes with TV programs that, I think, is mostly unfair. The idea of “the idiot’s lantern” that regulates television to being a time waster for lazy people is outdated. And yet, some people still proudly declare their ignorance of anything displayed on the silver screen. 

These people are so frustrating to me because no other medium is rejected with such pride. You don’t hear hipsters smugly stating “I don’t watch films” or “I don’t own any books.” While there might have been a time to differentiate between the artistic and intellectual differences between these mediums, that time is past.

We, as viewers and as a society, are currently enjoying what could be considered a golden age of television. The stories are more complex and compelling, and there are more distributors than ever before. Our television is more expensive, more pensive and more entertaining, and yet it is still being denied the credit it deserves.

No other medium is going through the cultural renaissance that television is currently experiencing. The quality of movies — generally considered to have intellectual and cultural value by the same pseudo-intellectuals who throw shade on television — has actually gone down in recent years with influxes of sequels and clichés. On the other hand, television is the most widely used media device in the United States.

Perhaps it is this mainstream appeal that repels some people. But willfully ignoring such a large and stimulating aspect of culture does not make a person seem impossibly intellectual, posh and busy. It just makes them out of touch. 

Shows like “House of Cards” and “Game of Thrones” are offering engaging social commentaries on our political system and the drug-like effects of power on the human psyche, respectively. By choosing to not to engage in this conversation, people miss relevant observations about the world around them and are left behind. They are also missing out on some incredible entertainment.

The idea of entertainment for entertainment’s sake is perhaps another reason people hold disdain for the medium. These people should keep in mind that even intellectual darlings like Shakespeare were considered low culture in their time. 

It offers the longest exposure time to interesting and complicated characters, like Walter White and Don Draper, giving the audience more time to digest, dissect and draw conclusions in a way that is impossible in a two-hour time frame. Its timely creation and distribution spanning multiple years also gives it the ability to reflect real time cultural issues with commentary.

On top of its political, social and cultural effects, it is also really fun to watch. So when I make a simple reference, and someone hoping to seem smarter than me smugly replies, “Oh, I don’t watch television,” they should know that I’m not impressed. That person hasn’t excluded themselves from the vapid entrapments of lesser folk, but instead revealed themselves to be hopelessly removed from the very thing they are trying to project — culture. 

check out more at at IDS.COM