Observer
Special Edition: Election Issue
the
@fordhamobserver
www.fordhamobser erver.com
October 28, 2020 VOLUME XL, ISSUE 18 Online-Only Edition
How to Vote Safely During the Pandemic By RAHUL SUKESH Staff Writer
COURTESY OF BAWILA IDRIS
COURTESY OF JOSEPH M. MCSHANE, SJ
COURTESY OF ROBERT SUNDSTROM
COURTESY OF LAURA AURICCHIO
Voting is a right that every American citizen who is eligible to vote should have the opportunity to exercise. For the upcoming presidential election, there are three ways to vote: by mail, early in person and in person on Election Day, Nov. 3. In what some are calling the most important election of our time, voter turnout is expected to be at an all-time high. To contend with risks associated with COVID-19, an unusually high number of people will be voting by mail, upwards of 50%, as opposed to the usual 25%. However, for several different reasons, this isn’t an option for many. Here’s how you can stay safe no matter which method you use to vote.
Why Do You Vote?
Know Your Risks
ing when and where you vote can be crucial. To help you stay safe, you can make a voting plan. In addition to checking your status as a registered voter, you should know where you’re going to go to vote (or how you plan to mail your ballot) and set aside a time that not only fits in your schedule but is also at a time when fewer people will go to vote. In order to reduce your chances of getting stuck in a line filled with people who may or may not be carrying the virus, go to the voting booths during non-peak hours. While that might depend on where you live, most people tend not to vote until later in the day. Also, knowing how your local county is handling the virus can help you make an informed decision on where you want to vote. You can check up-to-date information about your county’s COVID-19 situation at Johns Hopkins Coronavvirus Resource Center.
The best thing you can do during this pandemic is to keep yourself informed. When it comes to voting, decid-
The Observer reached out to members of the Fordham community to ask them why they will be voting in the upcoming 2020 presidential election. From University President Rev. Joseph M. McShane, S.J., to club leaders to students taking their classes remotely across the country, these are their answers. The posters they are holding capture their thoughts on the importance of voting and their motivations for casting their ballots this election.
see SAFE VOTING page 10
ANDREW DRESSNER/THE OBSERVER
Using a ballot drop box is a safe and secure way to vote in the 2020 election.
COURTESY OF LOREEN RUIZ
COURTESY OF KAYLIN BRIDGLALL
Breaking Up With the Opposing Party By MICHELLE AGARON Asst. News Editor
COURTESY OF KEITH ELDREDGE
COURTESY OF NISHITA NAGA
Editor's Note This is a unique period in American history — a high-stakes national election in the midst of a pandemic — and it will have a lasting impact on the Fordham students of today and those in years to come. We have dedicated this issue exclusively to coverage of this historic election and how the Fordham community experiences and processes the current state of politics. It is our hope that The Observer’s reporting provides insight into the many diverse voices found throughout the university during this once-in-a-lifetime moment.
“I was talking to a guy at Rose Hill and found out that he supported Donald Trump. That’s a dealbreaker for me,” Alleyah Ally, Fordham College at Lincoln Center (FCLC) ’23, said. “Your personal politics speak to your fundamental morals, so I would never be compatible with someone with very different political beliefs to mine.” Ally’s opinion was not uncommon in the group of 211 Fordham students who responded to The Observer’s anonymous political survey; 84 of the 211 respondents reported ending a friendship due to contrasting beliefs. For a one-to-five sliding scale question regarding willingness to befriend someone who holds opposing beliefs, the highest percentage consisted of 74 students who selected “2,” or “unlikely.” According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center this past July and August, most voters report having many friends who share their political beliefs. Of those surveyed, 59% of Trump supporters said they have a significant number of friends who support the president’s reelection, while 48% of Biden supporters said they are friends with those who support
the former vice president’s victory. Although The Observer’s survey did not specify candidates in the question asking about the political beliefs of the respondent’s closest friends, Fordham students seem to have political diversity within their friendship circles. While 52%, or 109 respondents, reported having close friends who share their political beliefs, 40%, which amounts to 95 respondents, reported having a mixture of friends with whom they agreed and disagreed with. “Particularly in your friend groups, you don't want somebody who’s always agreeing with you, telling you that you’re right,” Alex Rivera, FCLC ’24, said. “You need that person who can tell you that you’re wrong, because many times we are wrong, including me.” Rivera hails from Dallas, Texas, which he described as predominantly conservative. Growing up in a conservative family, he rarely faced opposition for his political beliefs until he arrived at Fordham. As a first-year at Fordham, he is part of a number of Class of 2024 groups in which students introduce themselves and disseminate information. see RELATIONSHIPS page 7
The Student Voice of Fordham Lincoln Center
Features
Online Activism
Students advocate politically on social media Page 5
News
Black Lives Matter
Students critique representation in the upcoming election Page 6
Sports & Health
Voting for a Vaccine
Each candidate’s plan for curbing the COVID-19 pandemic Page 10
Opinions
Gaining Citizenship How voting in the U.S. is a privilege and not a right Page 15
Arts & Culture
Political Education
Reeducating through literature, service and abolition Page 18
Special Report: Political Survey Page 12
2
News
October 28, 2020 THE OBSERVER
www.fordhamobserver.com
The Choice to Vote Polarizes Student Body
Pressure from voters and pushback from nonvoters has created a new discussion around elections By JOE KOTTKE News Editor
When it comes to the act of voting, the Fordham Lincoln Center campus community is not unified. In the 2020 United Student Government (USG) presidential election, the voter turnout rate was only 13%. Now, the student body is still divided as students are tasked with voting during a pandemic for the upcoming national presidential election. An anonymous political survey of 211 Fordham students conducted by The Observer found that 93.4% of students planned on voting in the upcoming presidential election. A short response question prompting students on their opinions of their peers who choose not to vote produced polarizing results, with the majority of the results condemning the practice of abstaining from voting. “I take massive issue with those that are able to exercise their right to vote and still opt not to with no good reason,” one respondent wrote. “They have an underdeveloped moral compass and little to no sense of purpose,” another student said. Other students answered in defense of those who did not vote, creating a stark contrast of beliefs. “It is people’s right to resist the illegitimate political system of this country,” one student stated. “I completely understand if there are BIPOC students who do not feel like it is even worth it to engage in an election that they know, regardless of outcome, will harm them,” another respondent said. Contrary to the wide array of sentiments about voting, 63.5% of respondents said they believe that the Fordham community shares the same political beliefs as them. Cases Made Across the Spectrum Katrina Shea, Fordham College at Lincoln Center (FCLC) ’22, advocated for voting, emphasizing the need for everyone to practice their civil liberties. “I think that it's extremely ignorant to deny the fact that voting does have some sort of impact on what our daily lives look like,” Shea said. “There's this sense of a lack of compassion for others if you do not exercise this right.” Shea is voting for Joe Biden as president, even though she is very doubtful that the issues she cares about will be addressed if he is elected. “It will certainly be a lot better than what we have right now,” she said.
“ It’s awkward be-
ing at odds with such a unanimous message, but it’s not out of indifference. It’s my choice. ”
Bruno Palomares, FCLC ’23
Shea also thinks the two-party system is flawed because voters are required to choose “the lesser of two evils” instead of other candidates they could support. However, for the 2020 election, she called voting for a third-party candidate ignorant because the chance of them winning is unlikely. According to The Observer’s survey, 87.7% of students are not in favor of two-party control in the U.S. government.
ESMÉ BLEECKER-ADAMS/THE OBSERVER
A student signs and seals their absentee ballot. In the upcoming election, the decision of whether or not to vote has been influenced by concerns with mail-in voting and disagreements with each candidate’s platform.
“I understand why people do not vote because some people do not feel safer or more comfortable with either party,” Em Krichmar, FCLC ’21, said. “I particularly understand when BIPOC or low income individuals abstain from voting because neither party has proven themselves to be truly allied with these communities.” Krichmar does not identify with any American political party — along with 17.1% of the survey’s other respondents — but voted for Biden due to his potential to be “safer and at the very least less violent” than Donald Trump. Cam Dasher, FCLC ’22, was more skeptical of the effectiveness of voting than Shea and Krichmar. “I don't think there’s anything wrong with voting,” Dasher said. “I don’t think it’s a bad thing to do. I just think people think it’s the only thing you can do.” The survey found that 73.9% of student respondents do not trust the U.S. government to serve justice or do what is morally right. Yet, Dasher has experienced backlash for critiquing the electoral system and politicians, even though they still plan on voting because they have the privilege to do so. “If you’re not critiquing candidates and you’re just letting these people exist in a vacuum, then nothing’s going to change.” Woody Wisz, FCLC ’23, chose not to vote for president. However, they did participate in certain state and local races, such as North Carolina's elections for the commissioner of labor and health and the human services director. “I don't fundamentally believe that either Joe Biden or Donald Trump will significantly decrease the power of state security in the US, or would refuse to engage in imperialism in neocolonialism elsewhere. I think they're both imperialists and I know that they're both documented rapists.” Wisz said they are voting selectively in races that they think will alter the material conditions of people in their community. Bruno Palomares, FCLC ’23, is also a nonvoter. “It’s awkward be-
ing at odds with such a unanimous message, but it’s not out of indifference. It’s my choice,” Palomares said he feels pressure from his student peers to vote — especially over social media, where timelines are spammed with voting posts.
A survey conducted by Pew Research Center in 2018 shows that nonvoters are disproportionately composed of young, poor and nonwhite citizens. He called his choice “more cynical,” but the “most principled” since he said he believes that nothing will undergo meaningful change after the election, regardless of who wins. Both candidates toe “the corporatist status quo of their respective parties — increasingly an ultimately meaningless distinction — all while lying to our faces about their well meaning intentions,” Palomares said. “So then why must I choose? Why ought I participate in a political system that bestows power without accountability?” How Voter Suppression Impacts Students According to The Observer’s survey, 38.4% of students feel like their vote has been suppressed. Dasher, like many students, is not confident about their vote being counted due to state restrictions and the dismantling of the United States Postal Service. Their home state of Texas, among 20 other states, has barriers that make absentee voting even more difficult — including the requirement of an excuse to receive a ballot. “It's not good for students right now; I just feel like we're getting sidelined. They're de-
funding everything that we need to actually engage with electoral politics,” Dasher said. More than five million Americans are unable to vote in the 2020 election due to various forms of voter suppression — including felon disenfranchisement, voter ID laws, registration restrictions and gerrymandering. Dasher is from Houston, where they said that gerrymandering in Harris County is “really really bad.” “All of the lower income neighborhoods are all grouped together into one district, but for some reason, there are a lot of smaller districts that are all upper white class.” According to Dasher, there is only one location in Harris County that accepts absentee ballot drop-offs: “that’s suppression in and of itself.” A survey conducted by Pew Research Center in 2018 shows that nonvoters are disproportionately composed of young, poor and nonwhite citizens.
“ I think if you’re
exercising your right to vote and you have that privilege, and you're not doing any other work outside of that, there’s no point in voting in the first place. ”
Cam Dasher, FCLC ’22
Wisz cited examples of voter suppression in their home state of North Carolina, in districts where the state’s historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) are established. “The restriction of information is a suppression tactic, even if it doesn't look like armed guards at polling stations, or the removal of polling stations,” Wisz said.
Stigma Around Voting Less than half of citizens from the age of 18 to 29 voted in the 2016 presidential election, reinforcing the stigma that young people do not vote. Shea said she believes a shift in youth electoral participation is happening due to the increase in online activism through social media. “I'm very excited to see what the younger generation’s turnout is going to be this election because I definitely think that it will be stronger than has been in the past,” Shea said. It is unclear yet how young people’s recent high levels of civic engagement will translate to voter turnout. Prior to the 2016 election, the number of youth-led demonstrations rose, but the election produced a 5% decrease in youth voter turnout from the previous 2008 election due to a prioritization of activism over voting. “I think if you’re exercising your right to vote and you have that privilege, and you're not doing any other work outside of that, there’s no point in voting in the first place,” Dasher said. Many students who defended the choice to not vote pointed to other methods of creating change in the U.S. that did not involve casting a ballot. Wisz said that they organize a food distribution program every weekend that gives food directly to housesless people in one of Raleigh’s city parks. “I think that something like that has a much greater impact in the lives of people day-to-day than any vote,” they said. “So I may feel pressure to vote, but I’m not really concerned by it. Because the people telling me about it aren’t out there on the weekends with me.” As November approaches, students who are seeking change through direct action and those who seek change through voting advocacy will have the opportunity to join forces and coordinate efforts against post-election injustices.
www.fordhamobserver.com
THE OBSERVER October 28, 2020
News
3
Valuing Both Student and National Elections
By SAMANTHA MATTHEWS Features Editor
With the 2020 election around the corner, most students at Fordham Lincoln Center (FLC) have become acutely aware of the political status of the nation. However, there is a political landscape closer to home that students don’t often pay attention to. The United Student Government (USG) is the most local governing body responsible for creating policies that affect the everyday lives of students at FLC. In September, USG held an election to vote in a new vice president. Many students on the FLC campus did not vote, with only 9% of the student population participating. However, FLC is on trend with other university student government voter turnout percentages. According to a study conducted by the Michigan Daily, the average percentage of voters in student government elections across thirteen universities was 9.8% in 2019.
“ That’s the real
way to increase Fordham pride, listen and react to student concerns so everyone can be proud to attend our school. ”
Robert Sundstrom, FCLC ’22 and USG vice president
These percentages are awfully low compared to the national voter turnout of college students in the 2016 presidential election, which was roughly 48%. So why are college students more concerned with national politics than the ones that affect their everyday lives on campus? Hannah Quirk, Gabelli School of Business at Lincoln Center ’23,
did not vote in the past USG election, but has already voted in the presidential election. “I was not even aware of the USG elections and my mind was so preoccupied with life in general,” she said. She added that she believes that only students who are active in the campus community vote in USG elections because it is not commonplace for everyone to do so. On the other side, Grace Munson, Fordham College at Lincoln Center (FCLC) ’22, did vote in the recent USG election. She did so because “even though it’s a small gesture, it’s nice to have a little bit of a say into what goes on at our school through usg.” Munson believes that students at FLC don’t vote in USG elections because they “don’t think usg will affect their lives very much.” However, USG elected members have the ability to create change and address problems raised by the student body. Current USG President Loreen Ruiz, FCLC ’21, has made it her mission to help cultivate a campus culture that supports all students. She is currently working on an initiative that will create “a series of dialogue-centered events in collaboration with cultural clubs.” “I've always been a big believer in the idea that the best way to tackle issues is by having honest conversations about them, and I want students to know that USG has racial justice at the forefront,” Ruiz said. Surprisingly, Ruiz is not a political science major but studies theology. She believes that the skills her major has taught her makes her uniquely qualified to be president. “What many people might not realize is that theology is an incredibly intersectional field, rife with opportunities to engage in critical theory. Learning about systemic inequalities and the challenges people face inspired me to become an advocate for students.” Conversely, USG Vice President Robert Sundstrom, FCLC ’22, is a political science and American studies major. His interest in public policy is what drew him to USG, but
he believes that anyone can become involved. Lydia Hallett, FCLC ’21, is the chair of facilities at USG. Her duties include running the facilities committee meeting where participants discuss Aramark, sustainability and campus operations. This semester, she pushed for a relocation of the McMahon Hall composting facility. In previous years, the compost facility has been located on the second floor, but this year the floor is being used as a quarantine area. Hallett felt that the university needed to keep the safety of the students and the environment in mind, so in collaboration with the facilities department at Fordham, Hallett and her committee moved the composting location to the third floor. Changes, no matter the scale, are implemented with the hope to create a better experience for students on campus. Hallett says that becoming a part of a student leadership team has helped her better understand the process to create change and how it can often take longer than one would like. “Being part of USG, I understand more of the reasoning of why some things happen and some things don’t and those timelines. There are certain complications, like budgeting or rules, that come from the admin point of view, that you don’t always see as a student,” Hallett said. Sundstrom said he agrees with Hallett, but is confident that by working “harder and smarter,” eventual solutions will come to fruition. Sundstrom is currently working with the Commuter Student Alliance to make sure that commuters are actively integrated into all USG decisions. This initiative is in accordance with his running platform of instituting Fordham pride. “That’s the real way to increase Fordham pride, listen and react to student concerns so everyone can be proud to attend our school,” Sundstrom said. Rachana Komatireddy, FCLC ’22, recalled her favorite memory of creating change at FLC as the chair
COURTESY OF ROBERT SUNDSTROM
Robert Sundstrom, FCLC ’22 and USG vice president, mails his ballot for the upcoming national election.
of operations at USG. In her role, which entails managing all undergraduate club formation, she was able to approve two clubs — Private Equity and Venture Capital Club (PEVCC) and Marketing Club — in the same meeting. “I had been working with PEVCC for a while at that point, and I knew how dedicated they were to creating this space for students, and how passionate they were about it,” Komatireddy said. “I really can't explain the happiness I felt for them when I was finally able to give them the good news.” A common theme echoed among all the aforementioned individuals was the hope for all students to regularly utilize USG. Ruiz wanted to remind students that “Everyone is a member of USG! Our titles and the fact that we’re in student government might seem intimidating: but at the heart of it all, we are students
helping other students.” Komatireddy agreed and explained that she wants “students to see me as an effective tool for engagement.” This dynamic of leaders representing the ideals of their community doesn't start and end with national politics — it can be applied on a smaller, more local scale. With the presidential election nearing, Sundstrom is encouraging people to vote, hopefully with greater turnout than the USG election in which he won his seat. “I believe it is imperative that young people in particular make their voices heard this election. “This election process has been stressful for all of us, and more so for many of our student communities, so I think it’s important that in addition to fulfilling your civic duty and encouraging your friends to do that same that we care for ourselves too.”
Professors Emphasize Political Education in the Classroom By NICOLE PERKINS Features Editor
A form of child abuse: This is how President Donald Trump referred to attempts to incorporate critical race theory into history classes. This September, he called a press conference where he declared that he would combat any attempts to diversify the history curriculum in schools. He pushed instead for a national commission supporting “patriotic” education that would teach America’s youth to “love America with all of their hearts and all of their souls.” This comes at the same time that Americans’ support of the Black Live Matter (BLM) movement increased in a period of two weeks as much as it did over the span of two years. Important issues such as the unarmed killing of innocent Black people and a discussion of health care in light of COVID-19 have been brought to the forefront of everyone’s phone screens. As these events have unfolded, there has been an increased need for information. In addition to classes, students have taken learning into their own hands. In an anonymous political survey of 211 Fordham students conducted by The Observer, an overwhelming 94.8% of students looked for more political information outside of the classroom. Most of them turned to film/ television (83.4%), books (79.9%) and YouTube videos (69.8%). Jaaee Nadkarni, Fordham College Lincoln Center (FCLC) ’22,
ANDREW DRESSNER/THE OBSERVER
Adding political education to the curricula and syllabi of classes is a valuable complement to personal research and social media, common ways in which students obtain their information.
said that she has “noticed a heightened emphasis on race in the US and the Black Lives Matter movement when it comes to class readings and discussions. One of my professors gives us the chance to speak about whatever’s going on in the world and how we feel about it before she begins the zoom recording.” Other students like Emaan Choudhry, FCLC ’22, echoed this sentiment. “Although I do get most of my political information from personal research, I’ve found that class discussions have made me more aware of the other side, I’ve found issues I’m really passionate about,” she said.
She added that even in non-politics classes, “professors have been emailing students additional informative articles and encouraging us to vote.” Professors are also doing their part to bring real-world events into the classroom. Professor Gloria Garcia, who teaches Introduction to Fashion and Culture, wrote, “Issues of racial injustice are so pervasive that they can be addressed almost through any subject of social study. This very course is by definition, a critique and a response to the Eurocentric view that fashion ‘started’ in Europe and developed with the emergence of capitalism.” She went on to say that “After
reading a couple of articles about these old tensions resurfacing among some young BLM organizers this past summer, I thought it was important to make room in the syllabus for these and other fashion/dress references appearing alongside the BLM movement in recent years.” This shift in curricula was not consistent across all classes, however. Jaisa Pinnock, FCLC ’22, stated, “I do feel like there are a couple professors that have changed the curriculum but despite this change, there are very few who outright talk about what is going in the world during class.” The need for political education in the classroom is not a new concept. During the Vietnam War, education on the conflict and the way the draft affected everyday Americans was notoriously amplified by college students on their campuses. Students were known for opposing the draft and bringing the issue to the forefront through demonstrations, protests and events. This importance was noted by Garcia. “If I show a photograph depicting a Black female protester dressed in a summer dress standing in the middle of the street and looking in the eye of an agent in military uniform, students make the connection and understand the symbolic force of the state and its asymmetrical relationship to racialized bodies,” she said. The lack of racially diverse educational opportunities pushes students to turn to social media. However, not everyone has social media. Those who do read a simpli-
fied version of an issue and assume their political education is done because to thrive on Instagram, an issue has to be reduced to a series of aesthetically pleasing slides. In a New York Times article surveying high school students, one participant from Massachusetts said that “Students should be exposed to politics as much as possible in order to help them grow into active political participants. This understanding and early engagement can also help students to identify issues they care about, which is important for producing activists and national change.” Some students have been going to protests and supplementing their knowledge with real world experience. Others are confined to their home by the pandemic and rely on their classes as the only exposure to people outside of their families. Pinnock further added, “I think that certain classes may have a hard time incorporating politics into their respective subjects. However, professors should be more supportive in the fact that this year affects everyone including their students. Not speaking out or making their students even more aware of racial injustice is ignorant.” Garcia echoed this, saying that professors should not just elect to alter their curriculum, but have a duty to do so. She summed it up by saying, “As an educator, my responsibility is to equip students with sound and ethical tools they can use, as independent thinkers, to make sense of their challenges and engage with the issues of our complex, connected realities.”
4
News
October 28, 2020 THE OBSERVER
www.fordhamobserver.com
Challenges of Voting in a Pandemic
By ALLIE STOFER Asst. News Editor
The 2020 election is a very different election compared to previous years, as the ongoing pandemic has changed the ways that people are casting their ballots. First-time voters and college students must choose how they want to vote this year while navigating the threat of COVID-19 and trying to stay safe. The Candidates In an anonymous political survey of 211 Fordham students conducted by The Observer, 86% of those planning to vote are casting their ballot for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and 8% are voting for Donald Trump and Mike Pence. Of the respondents, 5% said they are undecided and 1% preferred a variety of third-party candidates. Although the majority of students are voting for one of the two major party candidates, 87.7% said that they are not in favor of the two-party system. “We need to move to a ranked choice voting system so that people can vote for candidates that truly support their values without compromising their vote,” an anonymous student responded in The Observer’s survey. “For example, I would vote for the Green Party because they better fit my values, but in the current system they do not have a chance of winning so I will be voting for Biden/Harris.” With the electoral college, the person with the majority of votes in a state takes all of the delegates. The process is different in Maine and Nebraska, where they assign delegates on a proportional system. When asked how confident they were that the most pressing issues would be addressed by their preferred candidate in the next four years, 38.4% of students said they are unsure, while 27.5% said they are slightly doubtful, and 14.7% completely doubtful. Many students expressed their support for Biden as the superior option over Trump, but they did not show strong support for his policies. “Joe Biden is still not the candidate that a lot of the Fordham community, frankly, probably wanted to see, but it’s better to fight a neo-
liberal oligarchy than it is to fight a straight-up fascist,” Emma Kossoy, Fordham College at Lincoln Center (FCLC) ’22, said. First-time Voters
The experience of voting during a pandemic is difficult to navigate, especially for first-time voters. A first-time voter and staff writer for The Observer, Gabriel Garcia, FCLC ’23, is currently undecided on whom to vote for in the upcoming election but plans on voting for a third-party candidate. “Since I don't agree with either Trump or Biden ... I don't plan on voting for either of those two candidates,” Garcia said. “So, I'm basically thinking of what third-party candidate I want to vote for.” In the survey, 1% of students revealed that they, too, were planning on voting for a third-party candidate. Landis Hall, Fordham College at Rose Hill ’24, had previously only voted in the 2020 presidential primary. He said that he will be voting for Biden as the lesser of two evils, not because he identifies with Biden’s political beliefs. “I don't feel incredibly confident in either candidate,” Hall said. “Neither of them really excite me, but while both Biden and Trump are old and out of touch with what’s important to my generation, I still feel much more confident in Biden’s ability to address climate change and the pandemic.” Hall had hoped that he would be able to vote in person for his first general election, but is unable to because of the pandemic and distance constraints — he is living on campus this semester but is registered in Tennessee. “Of course I would have wanted to vote in person, but I understand that because of the pandemic voting by mail is the most responsible option,” Hall said. Mail-in Voting With the coronavirus pandemic still surging, many states have expanded mail-in voting. However, with the recent problems with the United States Postal Service and the constant remarks that mail-in voting will lead to a fraudulent election from the president, many students
GILLIAN RUSSO/THE OBSERVER
The David Rubenstein Atrium is one polling place near the Fordham Lincoln Center campus that offers both in-person voting and a ballot drop box. Since the pandemic has changed the voting experience this year, students face the choices on how they want to vote.
are worried that their votes will not be counted. In the political survey, 56.6% of students said they will vote by mail, compared to 32.3% who will vote in person. Even without the pandemic, college students are more likely to vote by mail because they live far from home. In the fall 2020 semester, between both the Lincoln Center campus and Rose Hill campus, there is a total of 9,399 students. Just over half of these students, 4,927, are from U.S. states and territories other than New York. When students who are planning to vote by mail were asked how confident they feel about their vote being counted, 37% of students said they were fairly confident and 29.1% answered that they were unsure. Some students are choosing to vote by mail due to the pandemic but are still afraid that their vote won’t be counted. “I mean, I'm a young person with a relatively low health risk, but I still don’t super love exposing myself to outside risks,” Kossoy said. “It just kind of felt like the safest and most reasonable option.” Kossoy explained that, this year, every registered voter in New Jersey received a mail-in ballot automatically. Kossoy revealed that if voting in person was the safest option, she would have chosen to do that. “I think part of it is also specifically this year — I wouldn’t want to
endanger other people who have no other choice but to vote in person,” Kossoy said. “So even if it was an option, it just feels like it’s best to have as few people as possible do that.” Some students are worried about their vote not being counted due to their experiences with the 2020 primary or earlier elections. Kathryn Echele, FCLC ’23, explained that despite requesting her absentee ballot on time for the Missouri primary, she never received it. “I tried to vote absentee for the Presidential primary last semester, but I never received my ballot. Thinking that was strange, I emailed my local board of election about it. They said my application must have come in too late,” Echele said. “The wording of their email was vague indicating to me they didn’t know what happened, even though I mailed it on time.” Echele explained that she learned that the same thing happened to her friend, causing her to contact her secretary of state and congressional representative. “Ultimately, no acknowledgement of an oversight or system correction was made,” Echele said. “I am someone who takes voting very seriously, so this experience was very upsetting for me.” Other students are worried because of bad experiences with mailin voting during the primaries. This
happened to students registered in New York when many didn’t receive their ballot until after election day. “Texas sent me my primary ballot in November of 2019 AFTER it was due back, I was straight up disenfranchised,” an anonymous student responded to The Observer’s survey. Corina Fuentes, FCLC ’21, has voted by mail in four previous elections and believes that it is just as trustworthy as voting in person. For students who are voting by mail for the first time, Fuentes recommends that they “pay careful attention to all instructions on the ballot while filling it out, and track their ballot online to make sure it was received by their state.” The election may not be what people imagined, but it is quickly approaching. With the increase in mail-in ballots, many states are also allowing ballots to arrive after Election Day as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Due to this, it is extremely likely that the election will not be officially called until after Nov. 3. “As demographics change, voter suppression has become a favored tactic of those who fear their new constituents will seek to replace them -- and the victims of this are almost always on the left,” an anonymous student said. “Mail-in voting is an imperfect solution, but far better than the alternative.”
Conservatives Hesitate to Share Political Views On Campus By STEPHEN BRAGALE Staff Writer
Conservative students on Fordham’s Lincoln Center (LC) campus have often found themselves in the minority. An anonymous political survey of 211 Fordham students conducted by The Observer found that only 10% of respondents identified as Republicans or Libertarians. About 62% of respondents referred to themselves as Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Leftists or Green Party members. The remaining 28% referred to themselves as either unaffiliated or independent.
Brandon Sapienza, Fordham College at Lincoln Center (FCLC) ’21 and staff writer at The Observer, said that Fordham is not a safe place for students to voice conservative opinions. “At least at LC, the population of the school is extremely liberal and that’s to be expected of a college these days,” Sapienza said. “The problem is that students now exist in a liberal/leftist bubble that is subsequently enabled by an administration who is not fond of conservative viewpoints themselves.” Of the 59 students in the unaffiliated or independent group,
GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION BY MADDIE SANDHOLM/THE OBSERVER
Many conservatives on campus do not feel comfortable sharing their political views with others. Similarly, professors often abstain from expressing their political beliefs due to professional concerns.
only two respondents said they have decided to vote for Donald Trump, compared to 44 students within the group who said they’re choosing Joe Biden. None of the left-leaning students said they were voting for Trump. When students were asked if they were willing to be contacted to talk more about their responses, students from the left and unaffiliated students responded yes 37% of the time. Only 19%, or four out of 21 conservative students, responded that they would be willing to be contacted about their political beliefs. This suggests that conservative students are less likely to speak about politics compared to their more liberal counterparts. Ava Peabody, FCLC ’23, had a different perspective of on-campus political discourse. She said that conservative students can safely voice their opinions on campus. “However, I define ‘safety’ in this context as freedom from fear that you will be sincerely threatened or attacked for expressing your political views,” Peabody said. “This does not mean that no one will criticize or challenge you— in fact, I think it's very likely. But in every situation where political views are being discussed, there is always a possibility that someone is going to disagree with you.” Similarly, Fordham faculty are less likely to discuss politics on
the record due to fears of alienating students or compromising their jobs. One professor denied a request to interview because they did not want the attention. It is unknown whether this is due to their political beliefs or boundaries they set between their work and personal lives. Another professor, who agreed to be quoted anonymously, said, “I’m not comfortable being on record about these issues at my place of work.” “I do not think that the hesitation (mine or anyone else’s) is due to anything that the Fordham administration is doing,” they added. “The rules that protect us and the attitudes around campus are fairly liberal compared to other Catholic universities.” Another professor who agreed to speak anonymously said that they didn’t want their political views to negatively affect their students. “I prefer my students not to know my ethical or political beliefs,” they said. “I don't want them to write their papers in a certain way, trying to curry favor, nor do I want them to be unduly influenced by my views --- I want students to engage with the ideas with as fresh a mind as possible.” The professor was also concerned about the potential career costs of being politically outspoken. “We’re currently living
through a very strange, illiberal time in academia, whereby not expressing strict adherence to the reigning orthodoxy can hinder one's future career prospects within the academy,” they said. “So if I were to express views contrary to majority opinion,” they said, “then that could one day be used against me by someone on a hiring committee who looked up my name.” Although politics have become more divisive in recent years, both professors and students attribute their hesitations about sharing conservative ideology to the fear of their ideas not being welcomed at the Lincoln Center campus. “Picture it like the wild where a mother is trying to protect her young and will quickly pounce on any possible threat,” Sapienza said. “That’s what it’s like being a conservative at Fordham.” Chase Frazier, Fordham College at Rose Hill ’20, who identifies with a minority political ideology, sees the importance of being able to socialize with people who hold different political opinions than his own. “I do not believe I have a single friend who shares my politics,” Frazier said. “During times of significant political ossification, finding areas of interest, rather than contention, are especially important because they help break down existing and reinforced tribal barriers.”
www.fordhamobserver.com
THE OBSERVER October 28, 2020
News
5
Social Media Takes Center Stage for Political Activism More than 70% of Fordham students participate in political activism online through social media By KATRINA LAMBERT News Editor
The social media platforms known today, such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, have only been around to witness three presidential elections. However, for this presidential election, social media has taken the forefront in the public political sphere over the past few years. Particularly among younger adults, the use of social media has become the No. 1 source for learning about politics and elections. The presidential election in 2016 represented new heights of politicians utilizing social media to organize voters and express their viewpoints to a collection of demographics. Social media provides a direct way for politicians to reach their followers and communicate their political agenda without having to campaign at in-person events. It is also a convenient way for people to participate in politics by keeping up with news and conversing with people within their social media circles. Online Activism According to Anirban Baishya, professor of communication and media studies, there are many different forms of online activism. There are grassroots organizations such as Color of Change, which organize campaigns online and provide resources for donating to support causes, and there are also methods for sharing information through one’s social media platform that can be considered online activism as well.
Even though 77.7% of respondents partake in online activism, only 69.7% believe it is effective. According to The Observer’s 2020 anonymous political survey of 211 students, 77.7% of respondents partake in activism through social media. Color of Change represents the more traditional way people advocate for issues online, but since the world transitioned to functioning virtually due to the pandemic, the use of social media platforms to champion causes has become much more common. Prior to the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers on May 25, Fordham students revealed in the survey that only 55% of respondents actively engaged in online activism. There was a spike in participation after Floyd’s murder, increasing by 22.7%. Over 60% of respondents said they post political content on their social media platforms at least once a week, and they reported that their frequency of posts have also increased since the death of George Floyd. However, even though 77.7% of respondents partake in online activism, only 69.7% believe it is effective. One respondent said that online activism is not effective for creating real change. “The nature of social media algorithms fosters behaviors of virtue signaling, groupthink, toxicity, close-minded mental masturbation, cancel culture and ephemeral activism,” the student said. These characteristics of so-
GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION BY MADDIE SANDHOLM/THE OBSERVER
With social media being the No. 1 source of young voters’ political information, activist groups and candidates can use it to reach supporters very easily.
cial media that the respondent named are not entirely inaccurate. The incorporation of social media with politics has created more divisiveness in society, Baishya said. “We often hear of people cutting ties with extended family because of ‘political talk’ on social media, and in some ways this fracture in the family is indicative of a larger split within civic and political discourse,” he explained. “I think we are in an era of unprecedented polarization.” However, Baishya said that he doesn’t think that online activism is a bad thing. “Social media is pervasive and people can think of it as annoying, but because of this pervasiveness itself, it's rife with political potential,” he said. Many successful grassroots organizations started on social media and were able to make more connections across geographical separation to organize behind a common cause.
“ Performativity
isn’t necessarily a bad thing. ”
Anirban Baishya, professor of communication and media studies
Some survey respondents explained that online activism alone without public action is why online activism may not be as effective. Baishya agreed and described the nature of political mobilization within two separate spheres — and online and offline — that mutually shape each other. “Trying to understand one without grasping the other is always going to fall short,” he said. Only 52.6% of Fordham student respondents said they participate in activism that is not online or social media-based. The 25% difference in respondents who participate only online instead of being active in person leads many people to view online activism as inauthentic or performative.
Performativity With Online Activism “Performativity isn’t necessarily a bad thing,” Baishya said. “Even demonstrations are performative, in the sense that political sloganeering is a form of performance.” However, when in the context of social media, performativity starts to take on a negative connotation. The majority of respondents — 71.1% — believe that online activism is performative. Additionally, almost 80% don’t think that online activism is an authentic representation of one’s self and role in social justice. Since social media has an overtone of inauthenticity online, performativity on social media can be perceived as inauthentic. “A lot of people just post black squares or put a nation’s flag over their profile picture and call it a day,” one respondent said. “Social media can of course help coordinate people showing up, but social media alone is not a place for activism.” Another reason why performative trends on social media can be seen as inauthentic is because the motivation for posting comes from pressure to conform to the trend. For example, a trend following the murder of George Floyd, #BlackoutTuesday, where Instagram users posted black squares on their timelines as a sign of solidarity, gained momentum through the use of peer pressure. Many activists later criticized this trend for being performative and having no real meaning attached to the posts. While Baishya agreed that social media trends such as #BlackoutTuesday are not inherently forms of activism, the use of peer pressure and fear of missing out that is present on social media can have a positive impact. Pressure can make people aware of certain issues instead of obliviously going about their lives unaware of the injustice inducing the cause. “It’s a double-edged sword — it does add to the volume of circulation of important messages, so that’s a plus,” Baishya said. “But without being backed by
committed action it can always fall short.” Of the respondents, 54% said that they feel pressure to engage in online activism. One respondent, Gabby Rivera, FCLC ’21, acknowledged the pressure she felt to post online. She decided to take a break from social media, despite worries that her followers would think she didn’t care about certain issues arising.
“ Online activism
helps spread resources quickly, but it can also result in rapid misinformation, which can harm activists’ efforts. ”
Laura Vasquez, FCLC ’22
“After the murder of George Floyd, I had to take a very very very long break from social media,” she said. “I had friends in group chats saying ‘if people aren't actively saying #BLM on their accounts I can't be friends with them.’ However, I feel the people who know me would know that I would agree Black lives matter.” Another common theme among respondents were the feelings of “annoyance” or “exhaustion” that came from the amount of political expression on social media. “I feel pressure, but not because I want my friends or peers to feel more highly about me, but because I feel a sense of obligation to increase awareness and support the under-served,” respondent Helen Hylton, FCLC ’23, said. Spreading Misinformation Laura Vasquez, FCLC ’22, revealed in her survey response that she did not feel pressured to post political views online, but that she has been active in
posting resources for various causes since before the murder of Floyd. Her feelings toward the effectiveness of online activism are that it can be both helpful and detrimental because of how quickly information spreads. “Online activism helps spread resources quickly, but it can also result in rapid misinformation, which can harm activists’ efforts,” she said. Baishya said he was struggling to find the positives of online activism considering the current political climate; one negative he can immediately recognize is the impact of “trolls.” Internet trolls are fake accounts created in copious amounts that are meant to purposely spread controversial information, regardless of whether they hold factual merit. Trolls aren’t regulated on social media platforms. Therefore, people are left up to their own judgments about what they choose to believe online. “Filter bubbles” are another concern online, as people follow only close groups of like-minded individuals on social media. Therefore, they only learn about information with which they would agree. In a New York Times report, a study found that 97% of political tweets come from only 10% of Twitter users. So while the general political discourse appears extremely polarized today, the people on social media making their voices heard are not necessarily representative of the broader public sphere, Baishya analyzed. “However, we must recognize that the early euphoria about the internet and how it would lead to a utopic, democratic state — that is definitely not happening. In some ways, social media and its viral potentials boost political beliefs and actions, but on the other hand they also accentuate divisions.” Baishya and many of the respondents agreed that social media is a great tool for amplifying voices and adding to the political discussion, but without resources to create and promote action, the movement can remain static.
6
News
October 28, 2020 THE OBSERVER
www.fordhamobserver.com
Students Say Presidential Candidates Neglect BLM
Activists express frustration at lack of accountability in election as public support declines
STAN WIECHERS VIA FLICKR
The Black Lives Matter movement has taken center stage in many students' lives and will play a major role in the 2020 election. By JOE KOTTKE News Editor
When the Minneapolis Police Department murdered George Floyd in late May, students rallied, organized and led the new wave of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement into the summer with the central demand of defunding police departments and investing in Black communities. Now, with the arrival of the presidential election, neither candidate has pledged to fulfill the demands. President Donald Trump has asserted himself as the “law-and-order candidate,” while democratic nominee Joe Biden has taken a stance of police reform, but in doing so, also declared the need to increase police funding to aid in the reform process.
In a follow-up question on how confident respondents are that the most pressing issues will be addressed in the next four years, only 19.4% of students said they are confident. “When we look to the heart of where this summer uprising began, Minneapolis, the city council there has still taken no significant efforts to actually defund their police, much less abolish them,” Woody Wisz, Fordham College at Lincoln Center (FCLC) ’23, said. “Joe Biden, regardless of his past, has committed to giving more funding to police. If they get more money, they're gonna hire more officers.” In an anonymous political survey of 211 Fordham students conducted by The Observer, respondents were asked to rank what they think are the most pressing issues in the U.S. Policing earned the third highest ranking, with 50.7% of students marking it as an important issue,
slightly trailing behind climate change at 79.1% and health care at 64%. Raekwon Fuller, FCLC ’23, emphasized that finding solutions to the survey’s top contenders for most pressing issues “is how policing will ultimately change,” due to the interconnectedness of the racist roots of American policing, environmental racism and anti-Blackness in the medical field. In a follow-up question on how confident respondents are that the most pressing issues will be addressed in the next four years, only 19.4% of students said they are confident. “I think the Black Lives Matter movement will remain a primary issue in the minds of most Americans,” Amara McNeil, FCLC ’23, said. “But I don't see us making any significant strides forward when it comes to actually changing policy and bettering the lives of people until we recognize that the systems of power are the issue and not the people who are in power.” The Apex and Decline of BLM Support According to The Observer's 2020 Political Survey, 84.4% of students participated in the BLM movement this summer either in person, online or a combination of the two. In contrast, only 55.9% of students were active in the movement prior to the murder of George Floyd. In June, Fuller led protests in his home state of South Carolina. “Something just ignited in me. I think the greatest change for me was getting into a society of African American people who understand the value of their skin, and them teaching me to stand up for myself and to love myself.” Pantho Sayed, Fordham College at Rose Hill ’22, did not participate in any BLM protests this summer. He said he is against police abolition but believes in the need for reform — a view he considered to be “not nearly as radical” as those of his college peers. “The system needs a way to ensure people who don’t deserve to be cops don’t get a badge, and that those who do wrong things
as a law enforcement officer are held accountable like everyone else,” he said. Ahmari Alford, FCLC ’21, spent the summer getting involved virtually in the BLM movement since she is immunocompromised. Before the pandemic, she spent many years organizing in her community in person. She advocates for abolition as the best route for the future of policing instead of defunding or reform. “The ultimate goal of abolishing the police is to reshift their jobs to properly trained officials who would not jump to violence in the event that they're put in danger,” Alford said. “You’re implementing real resources and spaces for communities to be kept safe that aren't just reactionary.” Abolition is an idea at the forefront of movements against police brutality internationally. Members of the #EndSARS, a Nigerian movement against the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS), claim abolition as a form of necessary decolonization. Even with international solidarity, only 15% of U.S. citizens support police abolition, according to one study conducted by Gallup.
“ You see some
people who are still trying to keep the fight alive, and are going to protests, but it's not as prevalent as it used to be. ”
Raekwon Fuller, FCLC ’23
Overall support for BLM has dropped, too. By August, when the Kenosha Police Department’s shooting of Jacob Blake went viral, the same study found only 55% of U.S. adults supported BLM — a decrease from the 67% reported in June. “It died down,” Fuller said.
“You see some people who are still trying to keep the fight alive, and are going to protests, but it’s not as prevalent as it used to be.”
“ I do think that
we’re going to continue to see the exact same situation we’re in right now, no matter who gets elected. ”
Ahmari Alford, FCLC ’21
“A lot of people I was around seemed to suddenly care about the things that I had been caring about for a really long time. But I think I got a little too excited too fast,” McNeil said. “People are already starting to not care anymore. It’s not the hottest topic, it’s not the trendy thing to do anymore.” The Election and the Movement’s Momentum According to The Observer’s survey, 40.3% of students’ image of their preferred candidate for the presidential election changed in the last six months due to their response to the pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement. “Having a candidate who would benefit the Black Lives Matter movement has always been a priority, however in light of our options, the standards are low, and I’d simply prefer one who doesn't consistently condemn the movement,” one anonymous respondent said. An almost-unanimous 94.3% of students said they believe that the BLM movement has influenced people’s thoughts on the 2020 election, while a lesser 79.6% of respondents said they believe the Black Lives Matter movement has influenced politics and will trigger legislative change. “The movement has an emphasis on community and working from the bottom up, but
clearly the government officials care more about their pockets than the general happiness of the country. Liberation cannot happen under the current state of the government,” another respondent wrote. Due to continued demonstrations, New York — as well as Portland and Seattle — was labeled an anarchist jurisdiction by the Justice Department in September. The designation threatened loss of federal funding to the city, but it has not led to a decrease in police presence in disrupting protesters. Students with different views on voting and the U.S. government agreed that protesters would be safer under a Biden administration. “I do think that we’re going to continue to see the exact same situation we’re in right now, no matter who gets elected,” Alford said. “I truly don’t believe in the whole ‘elect him (Biden) in and we’ll just hold his feet to the fire’ rhetoric because the minute you criticize Biden right now, you have people attacking you and saying that you’re a Trump supporter. So, no you actually don’t plan on holding people’s feet to the fire. You want to let him in and then go back to doing whatever you were doing before.” Within the Fordham community, a significantly larger number of students plan on voting than those who said they value activism. In comparison with the almost-unanimous 93.4% of students who said they planned on voting, only 77.7% partake in online activism, and an even smaller percentage, 52.6%, engage in in-person activism — including protesting, canvassing and other initiatives. “If people who actually voted were on the ground supporting their community, they would realize that their vote is nowhere near as meaningful as attending an organized demonstration or helping crowdfund for bail funds,” Alford said. McNeil said that although she believes that organizing under Biden would be easier, nothing will change in the long term unless America’s current political system is dismantled.
www.fordhamobserver.com
THE OBSERVER October 28, 2020
News
7
The Role Politics Play in Relationships
How political differences affect whom Fordham students choose to date or befriend RELATIONSHIPS from page 1
Rivera felt his fellow classmates were being intolerant when the College Republicans received backlash after posting an advertisement for their club on a Class of 2024 forum page. As a member of the club, he felt that the labeling, generalizations and claims of intentional provocation were incorrect and intensified his concern about being transparent with his political affiliation and support of Trump.
“ You need that
person who can tell you that you’re wrong, because many times we are wrong, including me. ”
Alex Rivera, FCLC ’24
Rivera also emphasized that he would not turn his back on his friends if they chose to cut him off due to political differences. “I feel like the relationship we have has value and something as dumb as politics should not ruin that relationship or friendship. It just doesn’t make sense to me,” he said. This stance on politics stands in sharp contrast to the opinion of a left-leaning survey respondent, who wrote, “Politics isn’t a closed-universe system where you vote and you’re done—it takes into account the moral and societal beliefs a person holds. Friendship and having a relationship with someone is not a right, it’s a privilege, and people shouldn’t be guilted into associating with someone who doesn’t have their best interests at heart.”
Teodor Parolo Tsaveski, Gabelli School of Business ’23, conversely believes that cutting friends and family off due to political beliefs is unnecessary and claimed that it is “very detrimental to society in the long run.” As a Macedonian international student, Tsaveski cannot vote in the presidential election but identifies as a conservative and supports Trump over Biden. Although he personally has not experienced extreme dissent from friends and family over his political beliefs, Tsaveski emphasized the correlation between “cancel culture” and rising political division in personal relationships. “People are not willing to listen to each other. It’s really sad when you cut off people like your family or your close friends just because you don’t agree on something,” he said. “I think that is a very undemocratic way of living.” Both Rivera and Tsaveski agreed that a person’s politics at least partially reflect their values but emphasized the need for nuance and understanding in political conversations. Other survey respondents regard opposing views as a personal affront, deeming someone’s political beliefs as a reflection of their morals and their level of respect for certain communities. “Supporting Donald Trump is a direct insult to my existence and the existence of many subaltern groups in the United States. Anyone who supports his rhetoric cannot be my friend because they see my community and others as somehow less than or inferior,” said one survey respondent who supports the Biden-Harris ticket. Multiple students also recalled considering or officially terminating relationships in which one person held opposing beliefs or refused to vote, citing “lack of empathy” and feeling
GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION BY LARA FOLEY/THE OBSERVER
In The Observer’s political survey of 211 students, 84 had ended a friendship based on opposing beliefs and 74 considered themselves unlikely to befriend someone with different viewpoints.
privileged enough to "not care for politics.”
“ I do not think my grandfather is ‘a racist,’ but I strongly believe we all have a duty to point out each other’s racist assumptions. ”
Nora Thomas, FCRH ’21
Political tension can also be seen in familial relationships. Only 35% of the students reported having family members whose political beliefs they agreed with.
Of the 25% who stated that they do not agree with their family members’ political beliefs, 90% reported challenging them on their political beliefs. Some of the negative consequences of these conversations reflect generational differences and sensitivities. Nora Thomas, Fordham College at Rose Hill (FCRH) ’21, recalled a conversation from last winter when her stepmom, Wendy, sided with her grandfather, who felt he was being labeled as a racist following an interaction between the two. Thomas’ grandfather is a Republican who voted for Trump in 2016. “Wendy made it clear to me that she cares more about my grandfather’s feelings than vocalizing resistance to internalized racism, which did not sit well with me,” Thomas said. “I do not think my grandfather is ‘a racist,’ but I strongly believe we all have a duty to point out each
other’s racist assumptions.” “It is...extraordinarily troubling to witness loved ones value individuals’ pride above a moral duty to dismantle violent (however implicit) ideologies,” she continued. Despite being on opposite sides of the political spectrum, Rivera, Tsaveski and Thomas all agreed that the ability to terminate ties with friends and family due to political differences is potentially an indicator of white privilege and not an option generally afforded to people of color. Privilege also factors into the choice to vote, a topic that has been widely contested on social media and drew significant criticism from students who encourage others to vote. For some Black, Indigeous and people of color, neither presidential candidate offers the representation and commitment to structural change they seek, resulting in a lack of desire to vote.
Like what you see and want to help create more content like this? Join the Observer’s weekly virtual workshops: https://fordham.zoom.us/j/8748114169 Sign up for the club email list here:
Sign up for our newsletter here:
Sports & Health
Sports & Health Editors Aiza Bhuiyan - ebhuiyan@fordham.edu Patrick Moquin - pmoquin@fordham.edu October 28, 2020
THE OBSERVER
The Election, the Vaccine, and the Fate of Higher Education
By LUKE OSBORN Sports & Health Editor Emeritus
According to Trump’s coronavirus response coordinator, Deborah Brix, a vaccine should reach college campuses as early as January 2021, which would usher in a more traditional spring semester. Brix’s timeline, however, may reflect Trump’s expectations rather than the actual state of COVID-19 vaccine research. There are several phases in vaccine development, and scientists around the world are trying to compress these phases from several years into a matter of months; currently, the record for the shortest amount of time between vaccine discovery and approval is four years. After scientists identify a vaccine candidate in the lab, it goes on to clinical testing in order to elucidate the vaccine’s safety and efficacy. This process comprises three phases: safety trials, expanded trials and efficacy trials. The vast majority of vaccines don’t make it all the way through these trials due to safety concerns or failure to demonstrate effectiveness.
The president will directly or indirectly affect the selection of, distribution of and public confidence in the vaccine.
According to The New York Times Coronavirus Vaccine Tracker, 59 vaccines are in these clinical trials, with 12 of them in the final efficacy trial phase. United States pharmaceutical firms Moderna, Novavax and Pfizer all have vaccines in the final Phase 3 trial. Both AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, other American companies developing vaccines, recently had to pause their Phase 3 trials due to adverse reactions arising among their volunteers, and it’s possible that other vaccine trials will follow suit. However, the completion of the last phase of safety and efficacy testing does not mean that the vaccine will be available to the American public immediately. In addition to going through the Food and Drug Administration’s approval process, the vaccine needs
WHITE HOUSE VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
The president receives a COVID-19 briefing in January. According to The New York Times, 12 possible vaccines are in the final efficacy trial phase, but after testing they will still need to go through the FDA approval process and be manufactured in large enough quantity before becoming available to the public.
to be manufactured in sufficient amounts to treat the entire population. Doses will most likely be limited initially, which will force health officials to determine who gets the vaccine first. The next president of the United States will heavily influence these policy decisions. The president will directly or indirectly affect the selection of, distribution of and public confidence in the vaccine. This makes this upcoming election especially important for curbing COVID-19. Trump’s ‘Operation Warp Speed’ Trump’s plan to roll out the vaccine, dubbed “Operation Warp Speed,” aims to roll out over 300 million doses to the American people by January 2021. The plan involves shrinking the span of development by running the phases
of finding, testing and deploying the vaccine simultaneously. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Defense are in charge of distributing the vaccine. In terms of cost to the consumer, the aim of Operation Warp Speed is to “provide free or low-cost” vaccines to the American public. The federal government has pre-purchased vaccine doses from several firms to fulfill this goal, and the HHS has affirmed that all of these taxpayer-purchased vaccines will come at no cost to Americans — who would qualify for these free vaccines remains unseen. In addition to health care workers, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published the COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook of Jurisdiction Operations, identifies people attending colleges and universities as one of many critical populations
that might be prioritized sooner rather than later. Trump has voiced expectations that the vaccine might be ready to distribute as early as Nov. 3 — Election Day. Moncef Slaoui, Operation Warp Speed’s chief adviser, has talked down concerns about Trump’s eagerness to rush the vaccine trials: Slaoui told ABC News that he would resign if he felt undue pressure to accelerate the testing of the vaccines’ safety and efficacy. On May 29, Trump announced his intention to relinquish ties to the World Health Organization (WHO), which would kill any American participation in the vaccine distribution on a global scale. Severing this tie also puts more pressure on the success of American vaccine trials: If a foreign vaccine trial is the first to succeed, then securing the vaccine for use in the United States might become a more cumbersome task without the aid of the WHO. Biden’s Vaccine Plan
PHIL ROEDER VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
The virus has shaped the election campaigns on both sides, and the next administration will influence the distribution of an eventual vaccine.
Biden’s plan is more global than Trump’s plan. One of Biden’s aims is to repair the United States’ relationship with the WHO in order to coordinate the international deployment of the vaccine. Biden has also made a commitment to make the vaccine freely available to Americans, regardless of insurance status. More specifically, he calls for the federal government to purchase vaccines in order to make them available at no cost to “uninsured, underinsured or Medicaid-eligible” citizens. In response to Trump’s comments on the vaccine being ready “within weeks,” Biden cautioned against this sentiment, stating that the vaccine might not be available until well into 2021. For this reason, Biden’s COVID-19 plan has included more testing, contact tracing and the supply of
personal protective equipment in order to mitigate further spikes in cases. Recent polls have indicated a pattern of vaccine hesitancy among college-aged Americans. One poll from Pew Research indicated that 31% of adults who are millennials or younger would probably or definitely accept the vaccine. Another poll found that a much larger margin of 18- to 29-year-olds would either not get vaccinated (35%) or were not sure (22%) — over half of college-aged respondents were vaccine-hesitant. Some of this skepticism can be attributed to Trump’s persistence in securing a vaccine in an unprecedented amount of time. To instill more confidence in the vaccine among the American people, Biden has been preaching “science-based approaches” to combating COVID-19, and he has differentiated himself from Trump by committing to listening to vaccine experts and developers in order to ensure safety and efficacy. A Vote for the Future Unfortunately, neither candidate will hasten the discovery of a viable vaccine, nor will he procure a better vaccine, provided that medical researchers maintain control over the vaccine development process. The next president, however, can influence whether citizens would accept this vaccine and the science that backs it, as well as who would have access. As for colleges and universities, the return of in-person classes and on-campus events requires the certainty that those communal activities won’t further spread this virus. Therefore, the federal policies that affect distribution and selection of a vaccine candidate will, in turn, affect the pace at which students get closer to on-campus normalcy.
www.fordhamobserver.com
THE OBSERVER October 28, 2020
Sports & Health
9
Nationwide Surge in COVID-19 Cases Comes Just in Time for the Election By KATRINA MANANSALA Staff Writer
As Election Day draws nearer and the weather cools, the number of positive COVID-19 cases is once again increasing, bringing the U.S. to the cusp of a second wave. As of Oct. 24, a total of 8.6 million cases and over 225,000 deaths nationwide have been reported by The New York Times. Additionally, a NBC news article stated that the nation has recently seen record single-day increases in new nationwide cases, with 77,640 cases on Oct. 22 and 79,303 on Oct. 23. Areas of the U.S. where rates appear to have increased the most include the Midwest and rural West communities, with states like Wisconsin and Illinois reporting just over 25,000 and 28,000 cases within the last seven days, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Communities in North and South Dakota are also experiencing record case increases at 61% and 40% in the past 14 days. Texas had almost 36,000 new cases in the past week, while California and Florida reported 25,000 and almost 23,000, respectively. New York City cases were reported at just over 5,600. Based on data from the NYC Health website, Manhattan specifically has reported almost 500 new cases, 34 hospitalizations and one death in the past seven days. Colleges and universities across the country have also been hit significantly by COVID-19. Despite efforts to prevent further viral spread by utilizing distance
Texas
36000 28000
Illinois California
25000
Wisconsin
25000
Republican States Democratic States
23000
Florida 0
5000
10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Number of Cases in the Last Seven Da Days GRAPH BY PAMELA PAJARES/THE OBSERVER
learning methods and keeping campuses closed or depopulated, The Times has reported a total of over 207,000 cases since late July, of which over 35,000 have appeared since the beginning of October. However, each institution has its own methods of testing students and tracking and reporting cases, as well as differing safety measures and guidelines between institutions. For example, Fordham University reporting runs on a 14-day system in which total tests and cases of both the Lincoln Center and Rose Hill campuses are updated to reflect data from the past two weeks. Because of the differing systems between institutions nationwide, the total case count among colleges and universities is likely lower than reports. With no end to the pandemic in sight and a second wave on the way, the presidential candidates’
plans for combating the coronavirus continue to be a heavy topic of debate and discussion, especially during the final presidential debate on Oct. 22. Former Vice President Joe Biden said he plans to start new shutdowns if scientists and professionals recommend it. Although it is not ideal to most of the public and for businesses like bars and gyms, Biden has emphasized that safety and proper precautions are necessary for ending this pandemic. In the last debate, he claimed that he will “shut down the virus, not the country.” President Donald Trump, on the other hand, opposes another shutdown, favoring the idea of reopening businesses and schools as soon as possible and placing blame of slow reopenings on the Democratic Party. He argues that businesses are dying because of the pandemic and what is needed
for the economy is a full-force reopening, despite expert scientific opinions discouraging that idea. For the past six months, Trump has claimed that the pandemic will reach its end soon, that the country is “rounding the corner.” However, despite his plans to manufacture and distribute 300 million vaccines by January 2021, critics and experts say that America will still need to continue preventative measures such as wearing a mask and social distancing into 2022. As early as mid-July, online medical journals and blogs have been discussing ways that Americans can prepare for this second wave. More recently, however, Hartford HealthCare published a short article about the 10 things people should have to get through the coming months. Among these items are humidifiers, air purifiers and “COVID-19 supplies,”
like masks, disinfectant wipes, sanitizer and household cleaners. With the changing weather and the start of the flu season, it is even more important to stay healthy and take necessary precautions to lessen the likelihood of contracting other illnesses. As the U.S. continues to climb in coronavirus cases, it is crucial for the public to continue practicing safety measures like mask-wearing, hand washing and social distancing. For college students living on campus, this is especially important due to the dense living conditions in college dormitories. Following the school’s safety measures and avoiding large group gatherings are key ways that students can prevent increasing cases and institution shutdowns. In the meantime, the public can only hope the candidates’ plans will prove effective in combating the virus.
A Tale of Two Stressors: Online News and COVID-19 By GUS DUPREE Asst. Sports & Health Editor
In this age of social media, we can get instant information from around the world delivered into the palms of our hands. However, with this unprecedented access comes negative consequences for our own mental health, especially during the U.S. presidential election and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, both of which have made news cycles especially saturated and overwhelming. Anxiety itself is a complex and multi-dimensional mental state that manifests in a variety of ways.
According to Professor Dean McKay of Fordham’s psychology department, anxiety at its root is “an action tendency where someone is prepared to respond to some kind of perceived or real threat in order to confirm safety.” Anxiety is a natural behavior which is ingrained within our psyches. McKay described three categories of threats that can trigger anxiety: real threats, or actual physical dangers; false alarms, or ambiguous stimuli like a shadow in your room at night; and learned alarms, or specific stimuli such as phobias of certain animals or situations, according to McKay.
GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION BY ESMÉ BLEECKER-ADAMS/THE OBSERVER
While anxiety is a natural response and entirely normal to experience, too much anxiety or the persistence of anxiety-inducing situations can worsen one’s anxiety or even develop into an anxiety disorder. Social media, the predominant medium that Americans use to consume news and interact with others, has been linked to increased anxiety in users long before COVID-19 or the 2020 election dominated the country’s discourse. McKay explained that social media outlets “are specifically designed to keep users coming back for more.” Social media apps keep users engaged and active on their platforms by tailoring content to peoples’ interests and anxieties based on the content they most frequently consume and interact with. People who are already prone to anxiety are particularly vulnerable to this model, McKay explained. Those who frequently read the news may be estimating the perceived threat to be more dangerous compared to those who don’t check the news as often. Combined with the methods used by social media companies to keep users engaged on their platforms, an already-anxious person will further overestimate the threats they read about when using social media. ”Under these circumstances,” McKay said, “you repeatedly get information about that, but it doesn’t leave a conclusion that you’re going to be safe — that’s going to foster anxiety.” Phone notifications may be especially unhealthy by prompting users to check their phone. People
whose phones give off notifications more frequently were found to also report higher instances of stress, anxiety and depression. Political and pandemic anxiety may be different in nature and cause, but the perceived and real threats that both entail can result in anxiety and stress, especially in those who are concerned with their well-being. The pandemic “has had consequences for mental health across every dimension,” said McKay, citing in particular the increase of reported anxiety among the public as well as an uptick in diagnosed anxiety disorders, which he attributes to the varying degrees of stress that the pandemic and subsequent lockdowns have had on people. Anxiety related to COVID-19 is rooted more in our instinctive tendency to avoid infection and contamination, a phenomenon McKay called the “behavioral immune system.” In instances where humans are aware of a pathogen, they may be predisposed to keep themselves clean by practicing self-cleaning behaviors and being more apprehensive of any real and perceived threats of infection. However, the pandemic induces additional stressors, including economic ones like job security and financial stability, as well as health-related ones like fear of infection and the real threat of catching COVID-19. While the behavioral immune system has been documented as a legitimate mechanism, plenty of people are hesitant of, and even actively defiant toward, the real and perceived risks of COVID-19. According to McKay, this is due
to the “perceived vulnerability of disease,” or how vulnerable an individual feels they are to a disease and being infected. The degree of vulnerability can be further reduced in people who don’t feel much or any economic stress or personal dangers of COVID-19, such as knowing individuals who have been severely infected with COVID-19 or who are suffering financially. McKay demonstrated how the media helps spread awareness of COVID-19 by reporting on cases of young, healthy people dying of the coronavirus, explaining, “One of the reasons why you see news stories that show young, healthy people dying from COVID, besides the tragedy, is to highlight the fact that more people are vulnerable to it.” If anxiety continues to preoccupy your life, and especially if you start missing work or avoiding interpersonal relationships because of it, it may be time to start speaking with a mental health specialist. Jeffrey Ng, director of Counseling and Psychological Services (CPS) at Fordham, encouraged students to schedule a virtual session with a licensed counselor. CPS also offers several self-help guides for coping with stress and anxiety brought on by COVID-19. Fordham CPS will also be offering scheduled support spaces for students to discuss sociopolitical and election-based anxiety. Students can virtually attend any or all of the two preelection discussions, scheduled on Friday, Oct. 30 and Monday, Nov. 2, as well as three post-election sessions, one each occurring on Nov. 4, 5 and 6, respectively.
10
Sports & Health
October 28, 2020 THE OBSERVER
www.fordhamobserver.com
The Future of the Affordable Care Act
Presidential candidates’ health care plans and their impacts on college students
ANDY BABCOCK/THE OBSERVER
The future of health care for New Yorkers, college students and all other American residents will soon be determined by the outcome of this election. By AIZA BHUIYAN Sports & Health Editor
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare, expanded health care to millions of Americans who were previously uninsured. It was signed into law in 2010 by former President Barack Obama and went into effect in 2014 under his administration. Since its implementation, it was met with both considerable praise and condemnation across political lines. The presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, have entirely different plans regarding the future of the ACA. Trump would like to see it repealed, while Biden’s presidential plans include countering changes made by the current administration and building on Obama’s previous contributions.
were able to add provisions in the ACA requiring Medicaid beneficiaries to prove that they either worked or went to school in order to retain their coverage. Trump also stated that he intends to make private insurance plans cheaper by eliminating Obamacare because it increased insurance premiums after the first few years of its implementation. Without a public option, Trump claims insurance premiums would decrease, which may include college plans. To do this, his administration filed a lawsuit to the Supreme Court to overturn this public option. During the presidential debate
on Oct. 22, Trump claimed that if the Court fails to eliminate the ACA, his administration will still “run it” with modifications. Trump claimed that he would institute a “better” health care plan that would protect people with preexisting conditions. However, he has not provided a clear proposal for how he and his administration would do this. Expanding the ACA With ‘Bidencare’ Biden, on the other hand, has called for building on the current ACA. Central tenets of his health care platform include statements
like “health care is not a privilege, it’s a right” and “everyone should have affordable health care.” During the last debate, he proposed a public option called “Bidencare.” Biden expressed that he wants to support private insurance as well as enhance public plans. He aims to introduce a Medicare-like public option for people who do not like their employer-sponsored coverage or cannot afford health insurance. Additionally, this plan would automatically enroll millions of low-income Americans in the 14 states that have not expanded their Medicaid options.
A Repeal of the ACA Under Trump Through several executive orders and his collaboration with Congress, Trump has already modified and weakened some of the main provisions of the ACA throughout his presidency.
If the ACA is repealed, another 20 million people, including college students, would also lose their health insurance.
He most notably terminated the individual mandate that required citizens to obtain an insurance plan or run the risk of paying a penalty. Additionally, states
ESMÉ BLEECKER-ADAMS/THE OBSERVER
While Biden and Trump have opposing views on the ACA, both plan to make significant changes to the law.
Biden expects that his plan would create healthy competition for private insurance companies and force them to lower their premiums, which he expects will also lead to negotiations for cheaper drug prices. He plans to raise taxes on those with an income of over $400,000 per year to finance the $750 billion this plan would require over 10 years. How Biden or Trump’s Plans Will Affect College Students During the pandemic, 12 million people lost their employer-based health insurance. If the ACA is repealed, another 20 million people, including college students, would also lose their health insurance. Since its institution, the ACA decreased the number of uninsured college students and substantially increased coverage for students of color. Moreover, the law decreased the racial coverage gap between Black and Hispanic students and their white counterparts. If the law was repealed, college plans, such as Fordham’s Aetna health insurance, would become the most affordable option for students losing their coverage. The Aetna insurance plan costs students $3,401 annually, which is a price some students cannot afford. These institutional plans already offer cheaper premiums than other private options in the marketplace. However, not all students can afford these added costs. Although 90% of students go to colleges that offer these insurance plans, some do not. Obamacare made great strides in insuring millions of Americans who previously lacked coverage. However, concerns still remain regarding the ways in which the ACA has increased premiums. Like so many other current issues, the future of health care depends on this election.
www.fordhamobserver.com
Sports & Health
THE OBSERVER October 28, 2020
11
Police Violence Is a Public Health Issue: What Will Donald Trump or Joe Biden Do About It? By AIZA BHUIYAN Sports & Health Editor
On June 4, the American Public Health Association (APHA) declared police brutality a public health issue during the momentous protests that followed the killings of unarmed Black Americans. In this era of social reform, other medical institutional authorities have begun substantiating claims that institutionalized racism affects access to health care for marginalized groups. So far in 2020, police have killed a total of 874 individuals in the United States. Despite making up 13% of the population, Black people made up 28% of those killed. Additionally, Black individuals are three times more likely to be killed than their white counterparts by law enforcement. These violent interactions can lead to negative physical and mental health outcomes among this group. A study from 2017 found that only 2% of injuries from law enforcement that required medical interference in a hospital setting resulted in death. However, Black people are five times more likely than white people to have a police intervention-related injury. Another study found that “living in minority communities with a high concentration of use of force by police against pedestrians is associated with an increased risk of diabetes and obesity.” Also, when there are large racial differences in police use of force between white and Black people in a specific community, there is an increased chance of chronic health issues for the latter demographic. The psychological history of police violence stems from slave patrols. Black individuals have been brutalized by law enforce-
ment figures for centuries, which has contributed to trauma that is passed down through generations within the community. There is substantial evidence that this trauma can negatively impact the health and well-being of people in marginalized groups. Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Social Service Jordan DeVylder, Ph.D., has extensively studied the effects of police brutality on mental health. “The rates of exposures to police violence in the U.S. are alarmingly high, and this exposure has been linked to a broad range of mental health outcomes including PTSD symptoms, depression, suicidal behavior, paranoia, and general psychological distress,” DeVylder said. “In addition to these direct effects, each incident of police violence likely vicariously affects the lives of people around the victim by creating a culture of fear and distrust,” he added. DeVylder cited the APHA’s 2016 policy in one of his studies which outlined the cultural and political factors that perpetuated police violence. The APHA argued that possible solutions to this public health issue could include decriminalizing minor crimes, improving systems of accountability for officers and implementing other large-scale crime prevention strategies. However, DeVylder questioned how compatible these approaches would be with President Donald Trump’s administration. “The assertion by this administration that the ‘anti-police atmosphere’ is morally objectionable suggests that reforms to the police system itself are not in agreement with the White House,” DeVylder stated in this study.
He continued, “Trump’s self-identification as a law-andorder president has not yet included any criticism of the exceptionally high incarceration rate in the United States.” DeVylder explained that there is a low likelihood of Trump addressing any of these issues because his administration reduced the use of consent decrees, which are agreements between police departments and the government to enact reforms. Conversely, former Vice President Joe Biden has supported the issuance of consent decrees. DeVylder clarified that although consent decrees had some success in curbing police violence in certain cities, they are ineffective in addressing the underlying systemic sources of this issue. “The most substantial impact on police violence and mental health may be the indirect effects of Biden’s other policies,” DeVylder said. “For example, by preserving and expanding the Affordable Care Act, victims of police violence may have improved access to mental health care.” However, DeVylder explained that these efforts do little to minimize the occurrences of police brutality. “Biden has primarily responded to the issue of police violence as an individual-level issue, based on the general concept that police violence can be prevented by identifying problematic police officers and then either training them further or removing them from duty,” DeVylder said. According to DeVylder, to improve public health substantial structural changes must be made by the government to address the underlying systems that allow police brutality to occur. Neither Trump nor
COURTESY OF THE BRONX NATIVE VIA INSTAGRAM
As police violence across the country prompted Black Lives Matter demonstrations, the American Public Health Association declared police brutality a public health issue on June 4. Neither presidential candidate has explicitly recognized this.
Biden has openly supported such changes. “Donald Trump has actively defended the use of excessive force by the police, and has stoked existing stigma around reporting police violence,” DeVylder said. “However, Joe Biden has likewise only minimally addressed police violence as a public health issue.” While medical and public health authorities have condemned police violence as a public health emergency, the
two presidential candidates still have not sufficiently addressed these concerns in their campaigns. DeVylder explained that the history of policing is rooted in racism and rose “out of slave patrols and other community-based approaches to maintaining the racial hierarchy.” Without acknowledgement from Biden or Trump of the racist history of law enforcement, any reform of the United States’ policing system remains uncertain.
Civic Duty and Social Distancing: Preventing Coronavirus Spread Among Voters
SAFE VOTING from page 1
Voting by Mail While all 50 states have always offered the option to vote by mail, there generally needs to be a reason. This year, because of the coronavirus, in all but five states (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Indiana), voters have been able to request a mail-in ballot due to COVID-19 fears. There’s considerable debate about whether or not voting by mail is the most secure or reliable option, but in terms of avoiding contact with other people, it is likely the safest. If you plan to vote by mail, be sure to check your state’s requirements regarding dates and ballot validity. In the state of New York, the list of qualifications that allow one to vote by mail include an inability to appear due to illness or disability. This includes the risk of contracting or spreading COVID-19, which applies to essentially everyone in this case.
ble to waiting until Nov. 3 because there will likely be shorter lines and fewer people for you to interact with. Voting in Person on Election Day, Nov. 3 Arguably the riskiest way to vote during this pandemic, visiting
the polls on Election Day will likely remain a popular option since voting by mail or early isn’t accessible for everyone. To save time and reduce potential contact with others, prepare all required documentation beforehand. Check your state’s voting requirements to see what you need to bring.
In the state of New York, no documentation is required to vote. In fact, New York voters don’t need to present an ID to vote as long as they provided one when registering to vote. However, many states have different guidelines on required documentation, so it is important to check first. When you arrive at the polling
Voting in Person Before Election Day One way to minimize contact with others is to exercise your right to vote early. Check your board of elections to see when and where early voting is available near you. New Yorkers can vote early starting Oct. 24. If you plan on voting in person, this may be prefera-
GILLIAN RUSSO/THE OBSERVER
Early voting has been open in New York as of Oct. 24, and lines like this one stretch for several blocks.
station, be sure to follow guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, like wearing a face mask and physically distancing from fellow voters. If possible, bring and use hand sanitizer after touching any surfaces or documents. Although the transmission rate for COVID-19 via surfaces is low, the use of sanitizer diminishes this risk further. Officials also recommend that voters bring their own pen to discourage using communal ones. Also, you could bring a Q-tip or gloves to touch any electronic screens instead of using your fingers. All three options have unique benefits and drawbacks. In terms of COVID-19 safety, voting by mail is likely the best option due to decreased contact with other individuals. However, due to controversy regarding the collection of late ballots and other factors, voting in person may be a more surefire way to make sure that your vote is counted. Voting early in person will likely offer more protection from COVID-19 due to lower turnout, but one can still vote safely on Election Day by adhering to proper precautionary measures. It’s important to vote, but it’s also important to stay safe. Following the proper guidelines and sticking with your voting plan can help you stay safe while you vote in this 2020 presidential election.
Breaking Down Fordham’s Ballot The Observer conducted an anonymous survey of 211 Fordham students between Sept. 8 and Oct. 18 to study college students’ values, analyze opinions of the United States’ political system and inquire into how politics impact personal relationships as part of The Observer’s coverage on the 2020 presidential election. The survey produced results with an emphasis on Fordham College at Lincoln Center students, who comprised over 75% of the sample size. The respondents are composed of all grade levels, including five 2020 graduates. The largest groups of respondents came from the class years of 2021 and 2022, equaling 60.6% of the total. The class of 2023 made up 28.9% and the class of 2024 made up 8.1% of the sample. The most common major among participants was political science, followed by English and global business. Participation was voluntary; The Observer distributed the survey to the Fordham community via social media, The Observer newsletter and selected department’s email lists.
he News t y b rt o p Re l ia c e p S
G
20
20
Desk
lm ho d n Sa die d a yM ons b Graphic Illustrati
y
le Fo
an
d
ra La
Ba
llo
t
Opinions
Opinions Editors Emily Ellis - eellis14@fordham.edu Haley Smullen - hsmullen@fordham.edu October 28, 2020 THE OBSERVER
Observer the
STAFF EDITORIAL
POLITICAL ACTIVISM NEEDS TO CONTINUE AFTER THE ELECTION
A
s the 2020 presidential election looms closer, it seems virtually impossible to avoid the intense emotional and political stress pressing down on the nation. Despite this, it is essential to remember our civic duty to remain active participants in the political sphere. While voting is a great way to exercise our rights, it is just one of the many ways to participate in the democratic process. Our duties do not end when the election does, just as the issues affecting us every day are not resolved when a president takes office. In The Observer’s anonymous political survey, roughly 94% of respondents said that they will be voting in the upcoming presidential election. Most of the other 6% were international students who do not have the right to vote in the United States. Clearly, the stress of the upcoming election has motivated students to engage with politics and exercise their right to vote. As students, the Fordham community has a responsibility to remain politically active. Activism and outreach are crucial elements of a functioning democracy, and they do not lose importance over time. People will continue to be affected by injustices in the United States, and it is our duty to engage and combat these incidents, no
matter who our president is. Only roughly 15% of respondents to The Observer’s survey said they were confident that their most pressing political issues will be addressed in the next four years. Only 4% said they were very confident. Clearly, most students do not trust that the president will enact the change they want to see.
Regardless of which candidate is elected into office this year, the continued effort of challenging laws and government officials remains central to the fight for structural change on a national level. This only speaks to the importance of remaining politically active regardless of who is elected. While some members of our community have been going above and beyond to address these systemic issues for months and even years, many Fordham students, professors and organizations, including The Observer, have only been paying attention to politics during the election. The Fordham community needs to actively engage
with politics in a meaningful and long-term way. Even at The Observer, we are publishing an issue dedicated to politics the week before an election. As a newspaper, we need to do better by actively reporting on local elections in NYC and on the ways that local and national legislature affects our community yearround. Active political engagement means voting in local elections as well as presidential elections, supporting petitions, marching in protests, contacting state representatives, spreading awareness and continuing to have political conversations with loved ones. Regardless of which candidate is elected into office this year, the continued effort of challenging laws and government officials remains central to the fight for structural change on a national level. A new politician in office today does not mean all our issues will be resolved tomorrow. Our duty as eligible college-aged voters is to make our voices heard and involve ourselves in the political process, whether we’re in an election year or not. The presidential race is important, but local elections are equally, if not more, imperative to making a difference in the political climate of the nation. To create the change we want to see, we have to be active participants in our democracy.
Editor-in-Chief Sophie Partridge-Hicks Managing Editor Marielle Sarmiento Business Manager Owen Roche Online Editors Andrew Beecher Gillian Russo Layout Editors Lara Foley Maddie Sandholm Asst. Layout Editors Pamela Pajares Olivia Stern News Editors Joe Kottke Katrina Lambert Asst. News Editors Michelle Agaron Allie Stofer Opinions Editors Emily Ellis Haley Smullen Asst. Opinions Editor Polina Uzornikova Arts & Culture Editor Ethan Coughlin Asst. Arts & Culture Editor Vicky Carmenate Features Editors Samantha Matthews Nicole Perkins Sports & Health Editors Aiza Bhuiyan Patrick Moquin Asst. Sports & Health Editors Gus Dupree Maggie McNamara Photo Editor Andrew Dressner Asst. Photo Editor Esmé Bleecker-Adams Fun & Games Editor Esmé Bleecker-Adams Copy Editors Alyssa Macaluso Jill Rice Melanie Riehl Lulu Schmieta Social Media Editors Roxanne Cubero Grace Getman Asst. Social Media Editor Maca Leon Newsletter Editor Grace Getman Multimedia Editor Mateo Solis Prada Alison Ettinger-DeLong Asst. Multimedia Editors Ben Jordan Emma Seiwell Retrospect Hosts Cate Galliford Corbin Gregg IT Manager Evan Vollbrecht
Visual Advisor Molly Bedford Editorial Advisor Anthony Hazell
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
To the Editor: Our Commitment to Deliver for You This Election Season With a record number of people across the country voting by mail, the U.S. Postal Service is actively working to ensure the secure, timely delivery of the nation’s Election mail. This election season the Postal Service has allocated additional resources including expanded processing procedures, extra transportation, extra delivery and special pickups—consistent with practices used in past elections, to accelerate the delivery of ballots. Voters should know that we are committed and actively working to serve the American public. Our Post Offices and retail locations are open, our mail carriers are at the ready and our collection boxes will be monitored and cleared regularly.
Our longstanding role in the electoral process has enabled voting by mail in thousands of elections over the years and we are confident in our capability and capacity to deliver again in this election season. When voters choose to vote by mail, they put their faith in the secure and timely delivery of their ballot to election officials, and we strive to continually earn this trust. This is our number one priority here and across the United States of America. As we continue receiving ballots cast by mail, voters can be assured that the women and men of the United States Postal Service are fully focused on ensuring their secure and timely delivery. Lorraine Castellano District Manager New York District
PUBLIC NOTICE No part of The Observer may be reprinted or reproduced without the expressed written consent of The Observer board. The Observer is published on alternate Wednesdays during the academic year. Printed by Five Star Printing Flushing, N.Y.
To reach an editor by e-mail, visit www.fordhamobserver.com
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES • Letters to the Editor should be typed and sent to The Observer, Fordham University, 140 West 62nd Street, Room G32, New York, NY 10023, or emailed to fordhamobserver@gmail.com. Length should not exceed 200 words. All letters must be signed and include contact information, official titles and year of graduation (if applicable) for verification. • If submitters fail to include this information, the editorial board will do so at its own discretion. • The Observer has the right to withhold any submissions from publication and will not consider more than two letters from the same individual on one topic. The Observer reserves the right to edit all letters and submissions for content, clarity and length. • Opinions articles and commentaries represent the view of their authors. These articles are in no way the views held by the editorial board of The Observer or Fordham University. • The Editorial is the opinion held by a majority of The Observer’s editorial board. The Editorial does not reflect the views held by Fordham University.
www.fordhamobserver.com
THE OBSERVER October 28, 2020
It Cost Me $13,860 to Vote MARIELLE SARMIENTO Managing Editor
I turned 18 less than a month before the 2016 presidential election. I could not vote; neither could my parents. Despite living in the United States for almost 20 years, we weren’t citizens yet. The right to vote — especially in this year’s election — was a major motivation for me to go through the naturalization process. However, finally becoming an American proved to me that voting in this country isn’t a right — it’s a privilege. My family moved from Manila, Philippines, to St. Louis, Missouri, in 2000 when I was only two years old. My parents came to the states on the H1-B program, a work visa that allows U.S. companies to hire nonimmigrants for “specialty occupations,” jobs that require specialized theoretical or technical knowledge. My dad’s work was opening a U.S. office and they needed an architect. In 2008, my fourth grade class had a pretend election and my classmates voted how their parents were voting. (Mostly McCain — it was a Catholic grade school in Missouri, after all.) When the ballot written with crayon came to my desk, I said, “My parents aren’t voting; we’re not citizens.” My teacher asked me in front of the whole class, “Are you legal?” This was the first time that I was ashamed of being born in the Philippines; I was embarrassed. I went to the bathroom and cried. In the wake of our new presidency in 2016, our immigration lawyer urged us to apply for citizenship — “We just don’t know what’s going to happen.” Naturalization — becoming a United States citizen — is a long, grueling and expensive process. My parents’ H1-B petition cost $3,460. After two years, H1-B visas qualify for renewal or a Green Card application, permanent resident status.
Filing for a green card includes $1,925 application and filing fees and a $250 medical exam. As a permanent resident, you can legally work and live permanently in the U.S. You need to live in the U.S. for five years before you can apply for naturalization. The application fee for citizenship is $725, non-refundable. According to our family lawyer, legal fees can amount up to $7,500. After submitting the application, we had to go to a biometrics appointment to submit fingerprints and then an interview with an immigration officer where we tested our U.S. history knowledge and English skills. I went through this process from Nov. 2018 to Sept. 2019 — after spending nearly my entire childhood in this country, it took nearly a full year to prove that I was American. Although we had become residents years before in 2008, we had to save up money since it was the recession, and my parents were starting a new business. I flew back and forth from New York to Missouri four times throughout the process. The interview was the scariest part. My mom insisted I wear a dress and put on makeup, to “look nice, so they’ll respect you.” It’s the same thing she tells me when we go to the airport. At the immigration office, I was asked if my mom could speak English (her first language) by every officer. I learned the majority of the interview questions in seventh grade social studies, and my dad knew the answers from watching the History Channel every night, but my mom had to cram by watching quiz videos on YouTube. I only remember one of my questions — “Who is the Speaker of the House?” I had to read aloud “Where does the President live?” and write out, “The president lives in the White House.” I had to legally swear I was not a Communist. My oath-taking ceremony took place on Sept. 6, 2019, at Harris Stowe University. I sat behind a woman from New Zealand in the
auditorium. It felt like a graduation, but our diplomas were our citizenship certificates. We sang “America the Beautiful” and had a guest speaker. In front of the District Court of Eastern Missouri, I had to recite the Oath of Allegiance, which entails swearing to defend the Constitution against all enemies, renounce any fidelity to any foreign state, bear arms on behalf of the U.S. and promise to perform noncombatant services for the Armed Forces when required by law. If I were male, I’d be registered for the Selective Service. The (literal) American starter pack includes a mini-flag, a pocket Constitution, a flyer of all my new rights and freedoms and a letter from the White House that said “This American legacy is now your legacy. This history is now your history,” signed by Donald J. Trump. My life hasn’t changed at all since becoming a citizen from a permanent resident, except I stand in a different line at the airport, and of course, I can vote. The first thing I did was go to the League of Women Voters of Metro St. Louis table and register. I will be voting in-person on Nov. 3 for the first time, as it’s now my right. Paying the Price The journey to receiving my ballot took two decades and cost roughly $13,860, give or take a few Southwest flights. Triple that to account for my parents. However, citizenship was not the only thing standing in my and many others’ way of voting. As a right, voting should not be exclusively accessible only to those financially privileged enough to go through naturalization or, for the natural-born, take significant time off of work and school. Filling out a ballot is privilege. Voter suppression is rampant in the U.S. A 2019 study by Cornell showed that those in line at polling sites in predominantly Black neighborhoods wait 29% longer than those in predominantly white neighborhoods. Absentee ballots are not being delivered in time
and rejections are projected to be higher than the 2016 election — a major problem since mail-in voting is a necessity during the pandemic. Election Protection, a nonpartisan coalition that promotes equal opportunity voting, has a hotline to call if you are turned away from your polling place. They’ve plugged their services on social media when voters took to Twitter to share stories of racial discrimation and questions of citizenship at polling places. “This is not the America we came to,” my dad said to me when we checked our voter registration together. This is not the America he had grown up visiting on vacation in his childhood. This isn’t the America that invited a skilled architect and his family and promised opportunity, but this is my America now. I don’t fault my parents for taking pride in their hard work to get our family to this country, but I do fault this system for making them
Opinions
15
and many others sacrifice so much just to vote. I’m lucky and grateful that my parents filed our application when they did. This month, Trump announced changes that made obtaining H1-B visas more difficult and expensive to sponsor specialized workers. Now, this is my country. My country with over 200,000 dead from COVID-19 and an oncoming third surge; my country with an ongoing struggle of racism and civil unrest. But because this is now my country, it is now my civic duty to vote. And if you have the means and the time, now is not the time to sit this one out. I stood in front of a judge, I renounced the Philippines, the place of my birth and the home of my family. $13,860. That is the cost of my vote. And I will use it to vote Trump out because he does not represent the America I want to live in. What will you do with yours?
MARIELLE SARMIENTO/THE OBSERVER
The naturalization process is long and expensive, making voting in the United States a privilege that is not accessible to everyone.
A Reminder to Fordham’s Activists STEVIE CORTEZ Staff Columnist
Politics of the People In a country yearning for political change at the cusp of a presidential election, it is crucial for those with economic and social advantages to remember those who turn the tide of revolution. History has been shaped by both radical and conservative intellectual student movements. Young and driven by a desire for a fairer world, we create literature, art, music and change for people of all backgrounds. Yet the lived experiences of many students and activists, especially in regards to race and class, are not completely representative of the people who fight these battles. This is not to say that these activists’ intentions are unjust or that their influence isn’t beneficial to the people they represent. Of course education and secure environments breed the ability to explore the full structure of injustice and, in some cases, can make finding and executing solutions more effective.
However, I implore today’s activists, revolutionaries and allies to consider and uplift those whom the consequences of our rhetoric affect most, because sustainable change takes more than political commentary pieces like this one. It’s all too common for people to post or tell their friends to “uplift voices!” usually Black and Indigenous voices, without taking concrete action to do so. Before asking disadvantaged people to speak on their experiences, it’s necessary to ensure their survival. Because well-educated and well-off activists don’t share the experience of poverty and the daily fight for mere existence, they cannot understand the burdens that revolution can have on these populations. Sometimes the impact is physical: It takes stamina to organize every day. But often the burden is psychological. Expecting someone to speak eloquently on some of the hardest aspects of their lives is not always the considerate or effective course of action. This is why providing resources through mutual aid is the first step in uplifting the voices of others and creating the environments where productive and inclusive social movements take place. Mutual aid takes many forms, but its basic purpose is to provide resources to those who need it most within communities. Only
when the basic needs of the most vulnerable are met can we expect people to share the nuances of their experiences, which is what is necessary for the sustainability and effectiveness of positive change. Resources to meet basic needs are key, and then the next step would be to provide resources to feed people’s minds. Additionally, supporting movements led by people with experience in the toughest envi-
ronments is extremely important. A perfect example of this is in Bolivia, where Evo Morales was elected as the first Indigenous president. Morales didn’t have the privilege of an education. He was born in a mining village. His family, like many Indigenous people in Bolivia, farmed the culturally significant coca plant as their ancestors had for decades. Yet with support from the
GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION BY ESMÉ BLEECKER-ADAMS/ THE OBSERVER
people of Bolivia, he was able to lead an extremely successful and significant movement that represented the Indigenous population. Morales was able to be an authentic voice for others because his voice cut through the crowd and shed light on the experiences of his population. This is a lesson for us in America today. Fordham tells us to be people for others. In order to do so, we must think critically about the way in which we advocate for the people they have dubbed “others.” So I conclude with this: As you demonstrate, advocate, organize and protest, remember that those actions themselves are a privilege many can’t afford. Remember those working in the fields growing our crops who won’t view your informational Instagram posts. Remember those who are so concerned about making the next rent payment that they don’t have time to read political theory. Uplift the experiences and opinions of those who have never debated the merit of social welfare, yet rely on it to feed their families. Be there, in truly meaningful ways, for the people whose opportunities have been stunted by racism and discrimination for generations. These are the people who need justice the most, yet whose existence is too often overlooked.
16
Opinions
October 28, 2020 THE OBSERVER
www.fordhamobserver.com
Refusing to Accept the ‘New Normal’: On Climate Change and Capitalism CORINA FUENTES Contributing Writer
Our world is on fire. Not just California, but the entire planet. Wildfires are burning from the jungles of Central and South America to the mountains in Lebanon and other areas of the Middle East. And while the fires are raging for a number of different reasons (be it inefficient forest management or deliberate deforestation efforts), they are representative of a much more malignant issue that needs to be prioritized in politics. It’s high time that the general public view climate change as a direct result of colonialism and the philosophies that endowed the men in power with the belief that the world was theirs for the taking. These views have directly led to the Earth’s rapid deterioration. According to National Geographic, in the last 10 years, we’ve experienced the hottest years on record, with the most wildfires, the greatest loss of Arctic ice and the most severe tropical storms. And this is just the beginning. Climate change seriously threatens our existence on this planet, with a timeframe much more narrow than most of us are comfortable thinking about. The problem is growing exponentially and we don’t have another four years to waste arguing over whether it exists or not. The outcome of this election could seriously affect the condition of the world’s climate for years to come. The elites of this country don’t want to acknowledge the state of the world or the role they’ve played to get us here. As we’ve seen with both presidential can-
didates, neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden has condemned the oil industry. It’s clear that money makes the world go round, specifically oil money. Niall McCarthy reported that “the world’s five largest publicly owned oil and gas companies spend approximately $200 million every year on climate lobbying controlling, delaying or blocking binding climate-motivated policy.” Their monetary influence over politics has subverted public industries to serve their interests rather than those of the common good. Although there have been attempts to create progressive legislation around renewable energy, they’ve been faced with extreme voter backlash, which heavily discourages representatives from drafting or supporting legislation promoting
renovations in the energy sector. This is the problem that Biden ran into when he tried to promote his climate change plan, which ultimately focuses on reducing emissions and building green infrastructure. His plan falls short, as he doesn’t have a strict ban on new fossil fuel infrastructure, and he doesn’t plan on having net-zero emissions until 2050. Although his plan’s timeline is less than ideal, the alternative is quite frankly, unthinkable. While Trump and his Republican base can no longer ignore the wildfires in California, they have yet to admit that emissions from burning fossil fuels are driving the planet’s warming. As a result, they’ve shifted their tactic to centering on the issue of forest management, allowing them to
take responsibility for California’s wildfires without encouraging divestments from the oil and gas industry. As Trump has said in both debates, he plans on building more natural gas plants and expanding the fracking industry, and there are a lot of powerful people who share his support for these dangerous industries. The real question is, then, how do we fix a problem that the people in power would rather ignore? The first step is talking about it with language that doesn’t disguise the fact of the matter: A very small percentage of people in this world are living a life of extreme luxury at the direct cost of the majority of the planet’s inhabitants. I’m not talking about the millions of upper-middle-class
CREDO.FRACKING VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
Protesters advocate for a ban on fracking in 2015. Neither presidential candidate this year has condemned the oil industry or the building of new fossil fuel infrastructures.
people around the world who have been able to make a decent living for themselves; I’m talking about the hundred-millionaires and the multi-billionaires of the world. There simply is no need (or excuse) for such vast hordes of wealth, especially when the system that produces them also directly leads to the destruction of our planet. We need to start investing in a system that doesn’t depend on the marginalization of people to succeed, a system that protects the Earth and sustains her for generations to come. While I don’t know what exactly this will look like in the long term, I do know where to start. We must fully commit to divesting from fossil fuels, meaning at the very minimum that we stop building new fossil fuel infrastructure. Additionally, we have to start reinvesting in communities that have been disproportionately affected by climate change and colonialism (which go hand-inhand). By purposely keeping these communities weak, we’ve only limited our domestic capacity to mobilize. We must also start implementing green infrastructure along our coasts and in large urban areas to help mitigate the effects of extreme weather. And finally, we must hold our elected officials responsible for their lack of action on the matter. While it’s hard to accurately do so within the confines of a two-party system, we must step up our individual and collective action to voice our concerns to representatives and protest the current system in place. The task at hand is large, but we have the capability to meet it head on — we just can’t afford to keep putting it off any longer.
Barrett’s Gain Is the LGBTQ+ Community’s Loss JESSICA YU Staff Columnist
Queens, Queers and Everything in Between June 26, 2015, was a good day. A really good day. It was a day of celebration, of happy tears. It was a day of sighs of relief and shouts on the streets and couples kissing in public with no fear. It was a day that my still-closeted 15-year-old self celebrated alone. June 26, 2015, was a day long overdue, but, at last, love won. I didn’t know victory could be taken away. Except if you cheat, but we didn’t cheat, did we? We fought, protested, suffered and died for this. If anything, we were the honest ones and they were the liars, telling us our love was illegal. But apparently, there’s no fairness in love and war. The appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court and President Trump’s potential reelection could threaten the safety of the LGBTQ+ community and the win on June 26. Among those on the Supreme Court who helped legalize samesex marriage through Obergefell v. Hodges was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose death a month ago alarmed anyone with rights that had to be won, including immigrants, racial minorities, females, LGBTQ+ individuals and more. On Monday, Oct. 27, we saw Ginsburg’s empty seat taken by
Barrett, whom Trump nominated. Barrett completely tilted the seesaw that is the Supreme Court by taking the sixth conservative seat and minimizing the liberal side to only three judges. It took Trump only a week to get Barrett a four-day hearing, which ended on Oct. 25. Even if we manage to vote Trump out of office, Barrett is here to stay. And since she’s here to stay, the slow erosion of any LGBTQ+ progress we’ve made will follow. During this hearing, Barrett failed to say a single word in support for Obergefell v. Hodges. When asked about LGBTQ+ issues such as Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized public displays of affection between queer couples, Barrett avoided answering directly. Barrett has been paid five times to speak at the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, a program under the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is an organization with an anti-LGBTQ+ agenda. Namely, they hold the belief that same-sex marriage undermines the validity of Christian religions. Barrett’s nomination came only weeks after the Supreme Court refused to hear the case of Kim Davis, a former clerk who was sued by two same-sex couples after denying them marriage licenses. Davis claimed her actions were based on her religious beliefs. Two Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., supported the decision to turn down this case. Thomas wrote a pitiful statement victimizing Davis, saying she was “one of the first victims of this court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision” and added
that others “with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell.” Victims? That would be the same-sex couples whom Davis turned down illegally. Cavalier? That’s to describe a Supreme Court justice who cannot see past outdated and poorly supported religious beliefs for the sake of his own discomfort. Difficult to participate in society? That’s being refused a marriage license. It’s being scared to hold your significant other’s hand in public. It’s being told you’re sick for whom you want to kiss. Unsurprisingly, both Thomas and Alito dissented back in 2015. At the time, Thomas wrote, “It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.” The day after the upcoming presidential election, the Supreme Court will hear the case Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. This case is about how two foster care agencies in Philadelphia turned down service to same-sex couples based on, you guessed it, religious beliefs. The city of Philadelphia threatened these agencies’ business unless they fixed their discriminatory practices, which resulted in one of the two agencies, Catholic School Services, suing Philadelphia. Not only does the organization want the privilege to refuse to serve same-sex couples, but Catholic School Services is also striving for the Supreme Court to allow various public services to deny service to anyone who offends their religious beliefs,
including LGBTQ+ people and amount of power until they die. those who are of non-Catholic And until they do die, our hands religions. are pretty tied. With Barrett securing the open I will always remember how Supreme Court seat, it does not I felt the day love won on a hot look like Fulton v. City of Philadelsummer day in 2015. I don’t want phia or any other cases involving to remember the day Obergefell v. LGBTQ+ issues will be handled Hodges gets overturned. with care. If Catholic School Services wins in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, same-sex couples could be turned away from businesses again. Their families could be illegitimized, their marriages could be broken and they could lose all the rights that come with legalized marriage. This is a not-so-friendly reminder that LGBTQ+ rights are far from secure. With every victory, we have conservatives exploiting their religion to try to take back what’s rightfully ours. We may live in New York City, where we can walk two blocks off campus and see Pride flags flying high on every corner of Hell’s Kitchen, but queer people still suffer from discrimination, ranging from subtle to outrageous, and will continue to do so in this pending crisis we are facing. So, yes, please vote. Please vote Trump out of office. But also please know that no matter what happens next week, Trump will have a legacy and it will leave ugly effects. The scary truth is that my and so many others’ rights lie in the hands of nine justices who have job security and a horrifying GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION BY OLIVIA STERN/THE OBSERVER
www.fordhamobserver.com
THE OBSERVER October 28, 2020
Opinions
17
A Pro-Choice Catholic on Single-Issue Voting SOPHIA ORTEGA Staff Writer
As a cradle Catholic, the Catholic faith has been my companion since birth. It led me through the traditional sequence of sacraments: Baptism, First Holy Communion and Confirmation. When I decided to attend a Jesuit university, I expected my faith to follow me there, and it did. But as with many relationships, the way I view Catholicism evolved from when we first met. Now, with one of the most important elections around the corner, I have become painfully aware of how the Church’s stance on abortion could influence single-issue voters. This narrow-minded way of voting goes directly against my personal understanding and experience of the Catholic Church. Instead of unpacking the complicated procedure itself and debating when life begins, I want to focus on Trump’s stance on abortion. According to Trump’s Twitter, he claims: “PRO LIFE! VOTE!” He provides no context or reason for this tweet. Instead, he polarizes pro-life voters and prochoice voters even more, amplifiying the singularity of abortion in his policial campaign. But this is Trump’s strategy: to find a reason for single-is-
sue voters to cast their ballots without examining him as a whole person. He targets religious voters, trying to capitalize on religious doctrines to gain supporters. What about me, a Catholic who believes in giving women the freedom to make a decision based on their own beliefs? It might sound counterintuitive, but the Church itself shaped me into the pro-choice Catholic that I am today. I’m no saint, but I’ve learned to treat others with kindness, to listen to those less privileged than me
and to respect those who think differently than me. I’ve learned that men telling women how to deal with their bodies is the opposite of compassion, that judging how women live their lives is the opposite of empathy. So yes, I’m a Catholic, but that label does not define who I am and what I stand for. We are critical thinkers, fighters and equally split in terms of political opinion. In fact, politically active Catholics hold diverse views, with 47% identifying as Democrats and 48% identifying as Republicans ac-
cording to Pew Research Center. This diversity is something to be celebrated, as I have had many civil yet informative conversations with Catholics who think differently than me, a true test of maturity and humility. Catholics are much more complex than Trump implies, so why should a single issue determine such a vital vote? Shouldn’t we, as Catholics, see that our current world is not one we want for our future children? We cannot vote pro-life until this world is better equipped to handle new lives. If Donald
GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION BY ESMÉ BLEECKER-ADAMS/ THE OBSERVER
Trump gets reelected, it definitely won’t be. A defunded Planned Parenthood would leave 2.4 million Americans without health care. The LGBTQ+ community would continue to be discriminated against, losing basic human rights because of whom they choose to love. People of color would still suffer from the white supremacist in office who calls a civil rights movement “toxic propaganda.” This isn’t about being prolife or pro-choice. This is about Catholics realizing that if we vote based on a single issue, we could elect a president who will do the exact opposite of what our faith stands for. Catholicism is my lifelong companion, and it affects not only what I believe in, but also what I fight for. I want my vote to fight for children, both born and unborn. But I will fight to protect their mothers’ rights, too. Financially insecure mothers. Sexually assaulted mothers. Black mothers. Lesbian mothers. Next time you see Trump tweet about being “pro-life,” ask yourself: Does he really care about kids, or does he just want to control their moms? Trump claims to have a Catholic fanbase, but as for me, I know a single issue will not determine whom I want elected for our future generation.
The 2020 Election Is America’s Last Arranged Marriage BIVAS THAPA Contributing Writer
The long lineage of political families and their history at Ivy League schools make me wonder: Why do we court presidents like we’re courting an arranged marriage? I’ve never heard the word “Ivy League” uttered so much since I watched a stereotypical Hindi movie. Because arranged marriages were a significant aspect of South Asian culture, Bollywood represented the romantic highs and lows of arranged marriages where parents constantly emphasized the “Ivy League” status of husbands. Families who do arranged marriages love to sell off their “Ivy League-educated” sons because the coveted Ivy League is a classic symbol of success. Presidential elections are just like arranged marriages in two ways: Both are organized by rich, oligarchal organizations (families and corporations), and both display the reassuringly classical symbols of success of their subject — the husband and the presidential candidate. Politicians are traditionally Ivy League-taught, polished, well-suited and lawyerly spoken; they are laid out on a debate stage like dolls on an assembly line. It’s not different from how husbands are presented in an arranged marriage — both are posturing to feel self-assured. The best word to describe how politicians want the American public to view them is as “respected.” They are just like the male suitor in an arranged marriage trying to get their potential wife’s “respect.” Politicians trying to gain respect from the American public is a peculiar task because the notion of respect is not utilized much in American identity. When we think of Americans, we think of individualized characters, trendsetters, entrepreneurs and one-of-a-kind
gems. Americans, throughout our history, have constantly been defiant of authority. So how do politicians reap respect from Americans? Asking why there is this toxic relationship between the American voting public and classically schmoozy politicians is the same as asking, “Why did the woman accept the toxic arranged marriage?” The truth is that many women are pressured into an arranged marriage by their parents, who are attracted to these characteristics because society determines that they carry a certain weight and value. Truly, Americans have become the oppressed woman in an abusive arranged marriage to an Ivy League husband, unable to look for different options because history has already determined the type of characteristics we expect in our politicians. Let’s fast forward to after the arranged marriage, after we have elected thousands of career politicians to Congress and to the presidency. We’re not feeling safe. This year, we experienced COVID-19, the Black Lives Matter movement and more. The suffering from both of these issues is caused by systemic problems — a broken health care system and the effects of widespread racism. Things are really bad with our Ivy League husband. All of these problems we are having with him right now are caused by our leaders’ inabilities. So, we try to open a dialogue with these long-held career politicians, the Lindsey Grahams, the Chuck Schumers, the Mitch McConnells. In return, we get more dodgy questions and misinformation. These career politicians spread misinformation and switch around the discourse to avoid talking about real solutions to these issues, and some even argue there are no “systemic issues” and they are not at fault for anything. This is equivalent to gaslighting someone in a relationship.
There’s no more common enemy; in 1960, Democrats and Republicans thought that the biggest enemy was the Soviet Union, yet today the Democrats and Republicans differ on whom we are fighting against: Is it the Marxists? Antifa? Proud Boys? Fox News? CNN? Republicans? Democrats? Is this the future of politics — a lack of consensus and an obfuscation of what is reality?
Asking why there is this toxic relationship between the American voting public and classically schmoozy politicians is the same as asking, “Why did the woman accept the toxic arranged marriage?” This all sounds similar to the fate of the woman forced into an arranged marriage where her husband gaslights her. There is no good in sight, everything is bad and reality is shaded so drastically that there’s no objective blackand-white truth. That Ivy League degree was a complete sham. Our trust in the classic symbols of “polished politicians” is evaporating because, in truth, they’re toxic. If career politicians are out, who’s in? Actual, real people; people who sport the iconography and looks of a comforting, everyday person, not a slimy businessman. Non-career politicians are the new “look” for politicians. The story of a non-career politician nearly beating the odds has been a commonplace tale in American politics since Donald Trump was elected. Even before then, Elizabeth War-
ren went from teacher to senator and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) beat an establishment Democrat incumbent. This is a complete rejection of the classic American politician, the antithesis of the toxic husband. Acting like an everyday person will be the new “Ivy League,” the new “career politician,” in the same way the nation yearned for more “governor-types” like Carter and Reagan instead of Washington insiders like Gerald Ford after Watergate. Today, Americans yearn for a complete abolition of the political system dominated by a typical politician’s iconography, image and lack of progress. We seek their antitheses — the Al Grosses, the Andrew Yangs, the AOCs, the Donald Trumps — hoping to find some solution to the problems we face.
Going from one populist to the next is a bit sporadic, but it’s a lot better than being stuck with career politicians who won’t do anything. I think the same can be said for the woman who accepted all of the flashy tactics and posturing in the courting stage of an arranged marriage. Instead, the woman can and should have the option to not be bound by the restraints of an arranged marriage and have the option to date authentic men. When either Biden or Trump gets elected, two faces of an old toxic past of condoning career politicians’ actions, one thing’s for certain: Career politicians are done, and young, casual, real Americans are taking their place. The 2020s will house a powerful reaction to the arranged marriage that is American politics.
GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION BY OLIVIA STERN/THE OBSERVER
18
Opinions
October 28, 2020 THE OBSERVER
www.fordhamobserver.com
What I’ve Learned About Debating From Among Us ESMÉ BLEECKER-ADAMS Fun & Games Editor
Watching the nation’s presidential candidates spar on live television in a fast-paced forum that lends itself to vitriolic one-liners, I felt a curious sense of déjà vu. Of course, none of us are new to bitter political feuds, but when I opened my phone to check my messages and saw the red and yellow Among Us icon, I realized that this sense of familiarity was both sillier and closer to home. If you haven’t played Among Us, you’ve probably seen it on Twitter. Players, represented by alien-like creatures on a spaceship, work collectively to fulfill tasks before the impostor is able to murder everyone, and when a body is found, the group votes on the killer (similar to mafia). I have spent an embarrassing amount of time recently emptying tree
leaves from an indoor garbage chute in outer space (because that makes sense). While
the game is a fun escape, one can’t help but try to analyze some of the fascinating social dynamics of debating who the imposter is, often with complete strangers. These dynamics feel especially relevant during a bitter election season. What makes an argument convincing enough to rally someone who has no personal involvement in the situation? How do you attempt to build credibility with people you’ve never met when they know it’s entirely possible that you are lying? How do you say the most with the fewest words when time is of the essence? These might be the very same questions that your favorite (and least favorite) politicians ask themselves all the time. I am no expert in Among Us and certainly no expert in debating, but during my stint as an amateur gamer, I have made the following observations on the art of persuasion. (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, if you’re reading this, I am unemployed and a huge fan.) Confidence Is Convincing I am certainly not the first to say that confidence helps, but the value of a clear and definitive statement becomes especially important in a setting like Among Us, where there is limited time for discussion. The more times you choose to skip the vote, the closer you come to collective ruin, so players are quick to grasp at any sort of
straw. I have seen people get away with blatant lies simply by being assertive. Similarly, voters gravitate toward politicians who make unwavering statements and unequivocal promises, even when they cannot possibly be trusted to make good on those promises. Lying with confidence on the debate stage is a calculated risk, one that is unfortunately often worth it for politicians. Not everyone meticulously reads the fact checks the next day, and there is little time allowed to list concrete evidence even if it existed, so the tone and presentation is what ultimately counts. In a world of “sus,” it pays to be sure of yourself. Put Your Energy Into Listening In the Among Us universe, the pre-voting conversation moves quickly, and people chat in sentence fragments and half-formed thoughts. While typing (on the mobile version, at least), you aren’t able to see the chat, so the longer you spend formulating a message, the more developments you miss. The rest of the group might have decided to vote you out by the time you see what they’ve said. Despite the time crunch, it usually pays to listen to what the other players are saying before you decide if, when and how to chime in. During a debate, there isn’t an option to stay completely silent, but listening is still important. Assuming that candidates do a lot of preparation prior to debating, they shouldn’t have to worry too much about what their own responses will be, which ideally gives them the freedom to put all of their
energy into listening to what their opponents are saying. Not only is it respectful, but it also allows candidates to pick up on their opponents’ inconsistencies and fallacies and to respond directly to what they’ve said. The 2020 presidential candidates were able to respond to each other’s comments more coherently when they weren’t rudely cutting in as often. You Get What You Give Humans are wired to mirror behavior, and it’s often a sign of rapport. On the flip side and as we see in many a debate, humans will also meet fire with fire as conflict escalates. The best way to not get insulted is to refrain from being insulting yourself. This has become even clearer through playing Among Us. From what I can tell, people tend to toe the line between genuine malice and tongue-in-cheek jabs made in the spirit of good fun, but regardless of intent, when players attack each other in the chat, it’s often very targeted. A situation will escalate between a specific few people who egg each other on. It goes without saying that the stakes are much lower in a video game than a debate leading up to a presidential election, but it’s still interesting to compare. A conversation will start focused on the details of an impostor murder or a specific policy area, and what begins as a legitimate topical disagreement will then devolve
into a personal feud, as we’ve seen in the most recent presidential candidate debates. Naturally, this makes for an
unproductive discussion, albeit good television. (In Among Us, too, it’s entertaining to watch, but ends up overshadowing the actual goal.) For this reason, candidates need to understand how difficult it is to say a single inflammatory thing and leave it at that, without consequently derailing the entire conversation. It’s probably not a good thing that an intergalactic digital mafia game has colored my perception of national politics to this extent, but as political debates and the rhetoric of the political sphere have become increasingly outlandish, I am clearly willing to go to great lengths in an attempt to make some sense of it all. Who knows, maybe some of these reflections on argumentation will come in handy at the Thanksgiving table, and if not, I’ll be in my room diverting power to the lower engine.
GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION BY ESMÉ BLEECKER-ADAMS/ THE OBSERVER
The Societal Benefits of Early Voting PATRICK RIZZI
Staff Writer
Taking place amid a socioeconomically damaging pandemic and featuring extreme political polarization, the 2020 presidential election highlights and exploits America’s divisions. However, while early voting may be politicized this year, it will be a useful instrument in any democracy long after this pandemic abates. The ways in which people vote have become increasingly representative of political tribalism this year. Forty-five percent of American voters plan to vote before Election Day, according to Gallup; the percentage of voters by political party that plan to vote early breaks down to 62% of Democrats, 47% of independents and 28% of Republicans. In many states, voters who want to vote early have two options: mail-in voting or in-person early voting. Mail-in voting has been politically contentious this year due to President Trump’s repeated attacks on mail-in voting, arguing that such tactics create a pathway for voter fraud to occur. Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on the integrity of the election and has made egregiously false claims that the Democrats are trying to rig the election against him. However, there is no factual evidence for any of these claims. Mail-in voting is safe and reliable, particularly if you live in a state with an online voter portal where voters can log in with their personal information to verify that their ballot has been sent and/or recorded. This is the case in my home state of Virginia.
Additionally, voting by mail is the safest option during the COVID-19 pandemic. There are large political divisions between levels of concern over the coronavirus, in part due to Trump’s pervasive downplaying of the pandemic. That said, voting in-person is likely reasonably safe so long as one wears a mask and avoids any crowding inside or outside of the polling station.
Furthermore, we should also make Election Day a national holiday and work to stop legal attempts to suppress voting in the United States, such as socalled “purges” of voter rolls. Early voting should remain a tenet of American elections in the future; we should be making it easier, not more difficult, to vote. This isn’t the first year that early voting has been available, but it should become more common and less politicized so that everyone can have more opportunities to vote irrespective of political affiliation. We should consider Election Day not “the primary” day to vote, but “the last” day to vote. Historically, many people have not voted in past elections for reasons such as long lines at the polls on Election Day or an inability to take time off work on Election Day. Having a robust early voting
strategy available for all citizens who want to vote early would make voting more accessible to a greater number of people, and thus encourage more widespread voter turnout. Increased opportunities to vote may enhance civic engagement, which in turn would be good for the country as a whole. It is not feasible for many to vote if they are greeted by fourhour lines at polling places, so increased mail-in or other early methods of voting would help reduce crowds at polling places.
Voting is a fundamental freedom of American civic life, so it must be made easy for all who are eligible to participate. Those who choose to vote early or by mail should not only be given that opportunity during a pandemic, but also have that opportunity every year. I voted by mail in Virginia due to a number of factors, including concerns about COVID-19, uncertainty about long lines at polling places or other potential difficulties faced by voters on Election Day, and the desire to “get it out of the way.”
In Virginia, an excuse is not required to vote absentee, which means that any registered voter can do so by mail. Absentee ballots are mailed out six weeks before the election. I received mine in mid-to-late September and sent it back. It was easy, safe and convenient. This should be the case for everyone, not just voters in Virginia. It is my hope that other voters across the country have options to vote as efficiently and conveniently as I had, and we should strive to make that experience a norm rather than a novelty.
GILLIAN RUSSO/THE OBSERVER
Voters line up outside a polling place near Lincoln Center. According to Gallup, 45% of voters intend to cast their ballots early this year.
Arts & Culture
Arts & Culture Editor Ethan Coughlin - ecoughlin7@fordham.edu
October 28, 2020
THE OBSERVER
What Is a Political Education?
Readings and active steps to take toward achieving a greater social awareness By VICKY CARMENATE Asst. Arts & Culture Editor
“No one is going to give you the education you need to overthrow them. Nobody is going to teach you your true history, teach you your true heroes if they know that that knowledge will help set you free,” wrote Assata Shakur, a revolutionary political educator, in her autobiography, “Assata.” Education is power, and the power of knowledge can drastically change perspectives and ways of living. I can truthfully say that my way of living has changed after taking my education into my own hands.
“ We must never
forget that it is the people who change circumstances and that the educator himself needs educating.”
George L. Jackson, author of “Blood In My Eye”
There is a mixture of things that should make up a political education: literature, service and abolition. As of 2020, the education system in America is not only failing its students and teachers due to the pandemic, but it is also failing them by withholding certain information from the classroom. Spreading information is one of the small ways that people in the community can spark change. Autobiographies It can be hard to jump right into complex theory or heavy historical texts when not knowing where to even begin. Autobiographies are like history books in the way that the reader follows the perspective of the organizer or leader. Assata Shakur’s autobiography is a must-read for anyone starting a political education. The pages grab the reader and don’t let go until the very end. This book is fundamental in the way it reads: a narrative to follow along to that also teaches the reader her struggle at the same time. The revolutionary was a political educator for the Black Panther Party; the book follows her life inside and outside of prison, revealing a real-life application of the prison industrial complex. Her subtle style of writing is digestible but moreover, impactful and only leaves readers curious about what else is out there. “The Autobiography of Malcolm X” takes the reader through the entire lifespan of Malcolm X. His life is a prime example of putting theory into practice. Spending seven years in prison, he had a long time to educate himself politically. Once he was released, he immediately put his knowledge to practice and informed the people of his findings by becoming an organizer. Malcolm’s decision making shifts from egocentric to communal, showing readers that it is human to make mistakes while also prioritizing accountability.
GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION BY CAITLIN BURY/THE OBSERVER
Essays, Speeches and Theory Theory and non-fiction text can be daunting, but it is also necessary in expanding what it means to gain a political education. These writers put words to the systems and problems that the United States inflicts on itself and onto other countries. They offer analyses of the things we normally would think nothing of. These works are fundamental in understanding the greater systems that control people globally. “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” by Paulo Freire is an analysis of the oppressed versus the oppressor and the education system. Freire believes that education is a tool that will help liberate the masses. He views education as a mutual process instead of a one-sided obligation, the roles of teacher and student are then diminished. Freire also claims that when one practices the act of obtaining their own education, they too are practicing freedom. “Blood In My Eye” by George L. Jackson encompasses revolutionary political education through an analysis of class war, fascism and racial violence. At the age of 18, Jackson robbed a gas station of $70; after that moment, he would spend the rest of his life in prison. “Blood In My Eye” stresses the importance of learning about the information left out of our school systems. Like “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” Jackson
states the interchangeable roles of teacher and student. “We must never forget that it is the people who change circumstances and that the educator himself needs educating.” Jackson shows that people with higher political education have the power to make change.
Education is power, and the power of knowledge can drastically change perspectives and ways of living. “Women, Race and Class” by Angela Davis, Ph.D., reads easy and is accessible for anyone looking for somewhere to start. Each chapter builds upon the next to build a perspective of intersectionality within identity. Davis also put together a series of her interviews in the book, “Freedom is a Constant Struggle,” which builds upon the idea of intersectionality. Within the interviews, there is a stress for folks to not only stand in solidarity with their own personal communities but also standing in solidarity globally with people. For further reading, you can explore Frantz Fanon’s “The Wretched of The Earth” and “Black Skin, White Masks.”
Social Media Considering that everyone has been forced to live online during the pandemic, screen time has increased immensely. However, since more people are looking at social media every day for longer periods of time, online resources have become more accessible and visible to the public. While it’s not reliable to gain information from random people on the internet, scholars, organizers and activists have spent their quarantines making fundamental theory accessible on social media platforms. Accounts such as @radicaltheory, run by abolitionist and educator @queersocialism, post key concepts and quotes from academic books that otherwise might not have been accessible to everyone. Academics on YouTube, otherwise known as “BookTubers,” have created anti-racist reading lists for folks to base their studies on. Professors of revolutionary history have also been sharing the work that they’ve written, hosting lectures and explaining theory on podcasts. In the world of technology, resources are endless — it’s just a means of doing the work to find them. Where to Go After studying revolutionary history, the next thought is: What now? The second half of
political education is serving in your own community. You can also continue your learning by listening to those who organize and other members within a community. Community engagement can look like a variety of things such as: volunteering at community clean-ups; attending teach-ins, rallies and protests; donating; and contributing to mutual aid funds. Volunteer opportunities are always happening around the city, and if they’re not, it is easy to create one yourself. Small acts like community clean-ups can be done on an individual basis; no organization is needed. The spread of the coronavirus means that not everyone is able to safely attend in-person community events. Luckily, many organizers will livestream their events or even hold online-only ones so everyone can find a way to be involved. Additionally, there are newsletters updating the community on online and in-person actions to take. Here in the city, Survived & Punished NY have opportunities for community members to phone or email representatives — something easily done at home. Theorist Frantz Fanon studied how folks can reach decolonization, and one of the things that he emphasizes is the power of education and direct action. “What matters is not to know the world but to change it.”
20
Arts & Culture
October 28, 2020 THE OBSERVER
STANDARD
www.fordhamobserver.com
The Font for the Next Four A Deep Look at the Design of the Trump and Biden Campaign Logos
OTA S E N N MI
By ETHAN COUGHLIN Arts & Culture Editor
I IPP S S I MISS
Logos are the renaissance men of graphic design. They need to be simple yet representative. Good logos can effortlessly be integrated onto t-shirts, bumper stickers, letterheads, billboards, face masks and everywhere in between. As Election Day draws near, campaign logos are everywhere we turn. Campaign graphic designers are given the difficult task of designing a logo that can represent a candidate, their platform and their party. Beginning with their technical aspects, Donald Trump’s campaign logo uses the font Akzidenz-Grotesk, designed by Berthold, for his and his running mate Vice President Mike Pence’s names. FF Meta, designed by FontFont, is used for the slogan as well as “2020.” In its most basic implementation, the text is white over a blue background with red stars and wireframing.
The “E” in Biden is red and lacks a stem to allude to the red and white stripes of the American flag.
IA GEORG
TENNES
SEE
The Joe Biden and Kamala Harris logo utilizes the sans serif font Decimal, designed by Hoefler&Co. Hoefler&Co actually designed the entire logo, which graphic design professor Goldstein pointed out was a little unusual. “It does away with the designer and goes straight to the typeface designer,” said Goldstein. “This goes back in a circle to the printer/typesetter relationship with the client.” When the possibilities of graphic design were
limited to the capabilities of the printing press they had, the operator of the press, the typesetter, became the de facto graphic designer. Before Biden announced Harris as his running mate and added her name to his logo, the solo Biden logo used Brother 1816, designed by TipoType. All of the text is blue with the exception of a red “E” in Biden. Trump’s incumbency presents some advantages in the logo race. People have been seeing the Trump/Pence logo for over five years now throughout his first term and his campaign before that. People are more than familiar with the classic box logo by now. Supporters of Trump already have their merch from the 2016 race and videos from Trump rallies clearly show how popular said merch is among attendees. The Biden/Harris logo gets a little more clever. The “E” in Biden is red and lacks a stem to allude to the red and white stripes of the American flag. The campaign does the same thing with the “E” in Joe when using the alternative first-name logo. The stripes are simple and easily adapted for different uses. Looking at the favicons, or the small icons on the different tabs of an internet browser, of both campaign websites, Biden’s stripes show up again in front of a “B.” Once again, the Trump campaign goes even simpler with a distinct, blue “T.” When Trump announced that Mike Pence would be his running mate in 2016, the campaign experimented with a different logo. The new design was meant to convey partnership by having the stem of the “T” in Trump run through the bowl of the “P” in Pence. The internet was quick to point out an obvious lewd interpretation of the logo and the campaign quickly returned to the classic Trump/Pence logo. Something we see in Trump’s logo and not Biden’s is the in-
clusion of his campaign slogan. “Make America Great Again,” or “MAGA,” has gone on to take up a life of its own. From chants to the infamous red hats, including this slogan in the logo was essential to their campaign. The fact that the slogan is so short makes it easily fit into the logo as well. It’s easy to see why Biden did not include his slogan — no one knows it. The Biden/Harris campaign slogan is “Battle for the Soul of the Nation,” in case you were wondering. Including this clunky slogan on their logo would ultimately take away from the effectiveness of the design as a whole. All that being said, graphic design professor Green is skeptical about the effectiveness of political logos at moving voters, citing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss in the presidential election. “The Hillary Clinton ‘H’ was a beautiful mark, both in terms of its abstract formal qualities and its symbolic resonance. It was pure and reductive but could also be adapted into many variations,” Green said. “I loved the way it evoked the history of Lester Beal’s Rural Electrification Administration posters.” Green went on to say that Barack Obama won in 2008 off a campaign logo she saw as rather basic. Despite this, she said that he still won because “his political campaign’s dynamism imbued the form with meaning.” No matter who wins, their logo will still live. Twelve years after his first presidential race, Obama’s campaign logo can still be seen making the rounds on bumper stickers, t-shirts and more. Decades from now, the campaign logos will be in history books about the pandemic and their design will be as foriegn to students as anything that old is to us. However, that’s the thing about logos: They’ll still exist, and they’ll still represent the same thing.
www.fordhamobserver.com
THE OBSERVER October 28, 2020
21
OR LIF CA
O OHI
Arts & Culture
NI A
W NE
YO R
K
O RE GO N
GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS BY LARA FOLEY/THE OBSERVER
22
Arts & Culture
October 28, 2020 THE OBSERVER
www.fordhamobserver.com
The Image of the Politician, Adolescent or Otherwise
21 years since its release, Payne’s political satire ‘Election’ questions the morality of American politics By KEVIN STOLL Staff Writer
In the run up to the presidential election, every time a television is turned on, a politician is on screen expressing their contempt toward the opposing political party. Every time a debate is being aired, the two candidates are seen as either the lesser or greater of two evils. This is the (unfortunate) reality of living through an election season in the U.S. But, that’s the nature of the politician, isn’t it? To put everything in front of them, and yet nothing in front of them. To preserve their appearance in such a way that makes their personal lives public while also concealing the so-called “real truth.” In a continuous election with two candidates in the running for the presidency, both of whom are a source of contention, there arguably isn’t a more stressful time to be an American. When the members of the two parties believe that their respective candidates can simply do no wrong, a central question arises: What do we really know about our candidates? More specifically, how far are they willing to go in order to remain as a voice of authority? In 1999, Alexander Payne and co-writer Jim Taylor answered that question with their adaptation of Tom Perrotta’s novel “Election.” Originally written and directed as a darkly comedic satire of American politics and the oh-so-coveted high school election, Payne’s film has garnered a larger following and greater acclaim. Since its disappointing theatrical release, the film has gone on to receive a Criterion Collection re-release, a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and even holds the honor of being former President Barack
GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION BY ETHAN COUGHLIN/THE OBSERVER
Obama’s “favorite political movie.” The film follows four different characters: Carver High School history teacher Jim McAllister (Matthew Broderick), the overachieving teacher’s pet Tracy Flick (Reese Witherspoon), the naive star quarterback Paul Metzler (Chris Klein) and his rebellious, closeted sister Tammy Metzler (Jessica Campbell). On the surface, McAllister appears to be an ordinary teacher who genuinely cares about his students’ education. But much to his frustration, his life as a school teacher seems more gratifying than his life as a husband. Feeling distant from his own wife (both emotionally and sexually), McAllister finds himself attracted to Linda, the ex-wife of his friend and fellow high school teacher Dave Novotny (Mark Harelik). Flick, considered by many to
be the teenage Hillary Clinton, possesses a sense of tenacity that is more abrasive than it is endearing. She is shown setting up promotional stands in the school hallways, manufacturing her own campaign buttons and even resorting to tearing down Paul Metzler’s campaign posters after hours. Much of Flick’s ambition can be attributed to her mother, who had always pushed her since she was a child. And it’s that kind of ambition that won’t let Flick lose sight of her dream to attend Georgetown University and eventually find success in the field of political science. Not even a former teacher-student affair with Novotny is enough to destroy her dream, since most of the student body and faculty (except for McAllister) knows that it happened. Paul Metzler, meanwhile, de-
cides to run for the high school president position at the suggestion of McAllister. Because he was benched from the school’s football team as a result of a skiing accident, Paul Metzler finds a new purpose in his life by running for class president. Paul Metzler’s commitment to the election isn’t even in the same stratosphere as Flick’s, as the only reason he has a chance at winning the election is because of his preestablished popularity. His image alone is enough to remind Flick of her distaste for popular students, believing them to be beneath the success that awaits her. Tammy Metzler doesn’t even pose a threat to Flick or Paul Metzler. She’s running for the position out of spite, since her girlfriend ended their relationship and subsequently became Paul’s girlfriend and his campaign manager. Out
of her own disinterest with the election, Tammy Metzler purposefully claims that she was the one responsible for tearing down the posters, even though McAllister knows that Flick did it. These four characters, particularly McAllister and Flick, attest to the importance of the politician’s image. McAllister’s morality isn’t always in the right place, but his intentions are well-meaning. Flick, however, values her own progress over everyone else’s, and is more than willing to step on anyone who attempts to obstruct her path. In this sense, one could easily classify Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump as the “McAllister,” and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden as the “Flick” of this upcoming election, or vice-versa. But there is no “Paul Metzler.” There isn’t even a “Tammy Metzler.” There is only McAllister and Flick. And both nominees’ campaigns reflect that association, as they competitively manage their own images, always striving to appear in the best light. After all, the preservation of the image comes first and foremost. For a candidate such as Trump, his activity on Twitter speaks for itself. For Flick, her image was always preserved. But nobody, other than McAllister, would ever know the “real truth.” We already know the “real truth” of Payne’s film, but what we don’t know is the “real truth” of the upcoming election. Everything we hear about these two candidates is often manipulated by the media, to the extent that factual information itself is practically nonexistent. We’re just going off of what we’ve been told, like the rest of the students at Carver High School. So when you cast your ballots, remember to think about the image. Think about who you’re really voting for. In other words, think about “Election.”
Is Television Still Relevant in a 2020 Election? By ISABELLA GONZALEZ Staff Writer
For the past few years, two questions have loomed over the entertainment industry as streaming services like Netflix and Hulu gained more popularity: Is television dead? Is television necessary? Despite the trend of people cutting out cable, television as a pastime has increased throughout the decades. It has helped shape history and served as a powerful political tool. And with television continuing to fight for its influence as a crucial media platform, 2020 has been no exception. Television “changed how politicians needed to act,” noted Kat Daughdrill, Fordham College at Lincoln Center (FCLC) ’23. “You had to look like someone in charge of a country.” While Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have extensive political backgrounds, they lack experience in the entertainment world, unlike Trump and Pence. While Trump is known for co-producing and hosting the reality shows “The Apprentice” and spin-off “The Celebrity Apprentice,” he was also an actor and participated in weekly guest appearances on “Fox & Friends” until the start of his presidential campaign in 2015. Because of this, during the 2016 election, Trump was a familiar face to many with his public celebrity profile. He knows how to capture attention to himself and give an entertaining performance. In comparison, politicians like Hillary Clinton were seen as cold and detached. Pence also has practice with
crafting a public persona. He was a radio and television talk show host of “The Mike Pence Show” in Indiana where he discussed politics. During this time, an infamous oped he penned in 1999 arguing that Disney’s “Mulan” was an attempt to influence the debate at the time concerning women in the military. He has plenty of useful experience with public speaking and persuasion that can be useful in any debate, especially a televised one.
Even if people are slowly moving toward the internet for political news, that doesn’t mean television is completely left in the dust. The past three televised debates have been perfect opportunities for Trump and Pence to show off their media skills and win back the American people à la John F. Kennedy. Interestingly enough, Biden channeled the approach Kennedy made popular in the 1960s by staring straight at the camera numerous times to talk directly to the nation about the urgency to vote and stop the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, the biggest conversations are centered around jokes and Twit-
ter memes, such as the fly on Pence’s head during the Oct. 7 debate. Biden’s campaign immediately started selling fly swatters as merch in response. Daughdrill said, “I think that shows a difference in priorities over what people are looking for now.” She continued, “it shows how candidates are appealing to a younger generation. The behavior (demonstrated in the presidential debates) could have been considered unprofessional but was actually funny.” The first 2020 presidential debate reached 73.1 million viewers, according to popular TV rating scale Nielsen, one of the highest-rated television events of the year. Even if people believed the candidates were unprofessional, it still made entertaining television. The involvement of the entertainment industry doesn’t end there. Celebrity Culture Celebrity culture, especially as of late, has gotten heavily involved in this election cycle. Recently, “Guardians of the Galaxy” actor Chris Pratt came under scrutiny on Twitter for his church’s supposed anti-LGBTQ+ views and allegations of supporting Trump. On television, Demi Lovato chose to make a political statement during the Billboard Music Awards by debuting her song “Commander in Chief.” Controversially, a large electronic backdrop was supposed to light up at the end of Lovato’s performance with the word “VOTE” but was cut at the last minute from the telecast. Sources claim NBC saw the message as a call to vote against Trump, just a day be-
fore NBC hosted Trump’s town hall. Brianna Doucette, FCLC ’23, touched on celebrities’ heightened political activity and stated that celebrities “come from such a place of privilege...the ones that are the most helpful are the ones that share info or provide sources on where people can get information rather than them talking from their own experiences.” Following its history of involvement in every election since its premiere, “Saturday Night Live” continues to air on late-night television and provide a good laugh, even if many viewers catch it the next day on YouTube instead. One cannot discuss the history of television and politics without acknowledging the growing transition to social media and online platforms for information and interaction with the American people. Most students interviewed were inclined to talk about online-related events rather than anything televised. Outside of Television On Oct. 20, two days before the final presidential debate, over 400,000 viewers were online for the U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC)’s Among Us stream to get the vote out, which became the third biggest Twitch stream for an individual streamer of all time. Insiya Gandhi, FCLC ’24, was eager to discuss the event and show support for AOC. “She came across as a normal person having fun navigating a game, not a politician pressurizing people to vote,” Gandhi said. “She’s the first political leader I’ve seen in general actually make an effort to connect with people.” She went on to share
that most people her age, including herself, prefer to get their news from email newsletters, conversations in class and podcasts, while parents tend to opt for news networks and television. Television is still impactful and relevant, depending on which generation you’re speaking to. The Among Us stream acquired the exact demographic it was intended for: young people new to politics and voting who have the potential to organize and generate change for decades to come. Ghandi ended on a cheerful note, “I think she’s opened gates for more politicians to interact with their constituents in more engaging and non-conventional ways!” Even if people are slowly moving toward the internet for political news, that doesn’t mean television is completely left in the dust. “Even though we can use our phones for most of the things we used to use TV for, like news, campaigns, and shows, they’re still filmed and conducted in the format appropriate for TV. Everything starts with television in mind, even now,” Daughdrill wanted to remind others. Television has never gone away. It might not be at the forefront, but it helps create the content we have today. Not to mention that the way politicians present themselves helps create the history that impacts us now. People “observe body language and make subconscious decisions that ultimately influence our decisions. After all, no one wants someone who seems aggressive or nervous as the president. They want someone that sounds and looks good.”
www.fordhamobserver.com
THE OBSERVER October 28, 2020
Revolutionary Funk Radio
Arts & Culture
A flashback in time to some of the greatest political hits of the ’70s By VICKY CARMENATE Asst. Arts & Culture Editor
Music has always been political. For many musicians, the very act of creating is revolutionary — the foundations of genres like funk and soul are built off of Black liberation movements. Funk has always been a genre for the people, by the people.
A history lesson within itself, this playlist is also just a reminder of the art that was being generated at the time. History has repeated itself, and people again have turned to the arts to express their frustrations and share common experiences. In this playlist, the songs hold the same conversations being held now — talks of racial violence and injustice, Black liberation, and intersectional solidarity.
Revolutionary Funk Radio: During the ’70s, the rise of the funk community was a direct response to the aftermath of the civil rights movement that rose out of the Jim Crow era. The Black Panther Party had been created during the late ’60s in Oakland, California, in direct response to police brutality and racial violence against Black folks. Freedom was on everyone’s mind and therefore reflected in music at the time. “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised” by Gil Scott-Heron “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised” is Scott-Heron’s wakeup call to folks living in America. The title within itself tells you to get up — freedom won’t be found while sitting at home watching TV, freedom is achieved when the people demand it. Considered funk due to the groove on the bassline, the song also incorporates spoken-word into his song, only reiterating the fact that he is serious about the revolution and serious about what he’s saying. “Living for the City” by Stevie Wonder Being a common household name (I hope), there is no question why Stevie Wonder would be on this funk playlist. “Living for the City” tells a story about a Black man living in Mississippi during the heart of the civil rights era. Eventually, he grows up and escapes to New York City. Throughout the song a churning bassline is heard, emphasizing the zombie-like feeling of living in the city as this man — he walks through every day feeling the same and never getting a leg up. Many of Stevie Wonder’s songs highlight the everyday struggle of being Black in the United States. “Inner City Blues (Makes Me Wanna Holler)” by Marvin Gaye Marvin Gaye’s “Inner City Blues” is a direct response to the economic situation in inner cities in America after the Vietnam War and the space race. At the time of the space race, the government was trying to beat Russia in space exploration by spending a lot of money on sending
people to space while cities filled with Black and brown folks lacked basic resources. War, within itself, is beyond expensive. Gaye talks about inflation, debt, crime and policing. Policing increases in his neighborhood because crime is up. Crime is up because everyone is in debt. Everyone is in debt because the government doesn’t provide them adequate resources. This vicious cycle continues and, just like the mesmerizing bassline, is hard to escape. “Everyday People” by Sly and the Family Stone Sly and the Family Stone were a diverse group of musicians that often sang and spoke unapologetically about their experiences. “Everyday People” is one of the songs on this playlist that plans to unify those who are taught to not get along. The band does this through an upbeat song, making it hard to not feel joy when listening.
VIA BGP
VIA TAMLA
VIA TAMLA
VIA EPIC
“Fight the Power, Pts. 1&2” by The Isley Brothers The Isley Brothers provide a beautiful insight into what abolition feels like. In the song, they mention something as simple as trying to listen to music while being told that they’re disruptive from their white counterparts. After the brothers start to “roll with the punches,” or work with the white people actively working against them, they are met with more racialized injustice. No matter what way they turn or who they work with, they can’t win so they have to fight the power all together. The track is an incredible dance song while simultaneously sharing the lived experience of needing abolition. “Impeach the President” by The Honey Drippers “Impeach the President” released in 1973 was a response to the Nixon administration and its unethical practices. This band from Queens, New York, came together to independently release this track. At the time, the Watergate scandal had cost Nixon his political support, and the people were protesting to get him out of the White House. Eventually, he would resign before Congress and the Senate could agree on his impeachment and removal. The song has been sampled over 600 times on many different hip-hop tracks like “The Chronic” by Dr. Dre and Tupac’s “I Get Around.” The truth behind the lyrics has stuck with people ever since it came out and is still applicable to 2020.
VIA SONY LEGACY
VIA ALAGA RECORDS
“Baltimore” by Nina Simone Slowing things down for the last song, “Baltimore” is a description of the city and how Simone’s neighborhood is dying from the inside. Released in 1978, this song reflects on how cities, and specifically Black neighborhoods, were directly impacted by the War on Drugs and other racialized violence. Increased policing in the neighborhood meant less funding, resulting in a city that kills itself from the inside out. It’s one thing to listen to music, another to truly understand it. These songs are landmarks in a very important timeline — a moment where change was, and now still is, needed. A history lesson within itself, this playlist is also just a reminder of the art that was being generated at the time. These musicians made huge contributions to the evolution of a funk, a revolutionary act within itself.
In this playlist, the songs hold the same conversations being held now — talks of racial violence and injustice, Black liberation, and intersectional solidarity. VIA LEGACY
23
Fun & Games
Fun & Games Editor Esmé Bleecker-Adams - ebleeckeradams@fordham.edu
October 28, 2020 THE OBSERVER
Crossword: Politicalories
By ESMÉ BLEECKER-ADAMS
ACROSS 1. 18 and 21 to be able to vote and drink alcohol in the United States, respectively 5. Time Warner ___ 10. places for immediate medical care: Abbr.
13. type of freshwater fish, or complain 14. shape of DNA, when doubled 15. exchange for money 17. Russian ruler, in the past 18. past, archaically 19. branch of Islam whose followers believe Ali was the rightful successor to
Ijeoma Oluo 60. strike, conquer or demolish 61. frequent swing state 62. drug which some people claim the Beatles wrote about: Abbr. 63. donkeys, archaically 64. edges, of canyons, perhaps
DOWN 1. section of a play 2. water vapor or carbon dioxide, for example 3. epoque 4. Brussels ___; possible Thanksgiving dish 5. damages by rubbing 6. one of the Saronic Islands, known for a historic rivalry with Athens 7. alliance or coalition 8. queue 9. company leader: Abbr. 10. intrinsic nature or ethos, or “gasoline” en Français 11. bring up (a situation) again 12. goop 16. final 21. government detective agency: Abbr. 22. ___ up; causes to be irritated 23. a phishing email, for example 24. famous yellow car, in New York 25. pseudonym of “Warriors” authors Hunter 28. water nymph, in
Greek mythology 29. genetic code: Abbr. 30. did not lose 34. main house on an estate 35. actor Byrnes of “77 Sunset Strip” 36. operating a vehicle while intoxicated: Abbr. 37. small fly similar to a mosquito 38. endangered rabbit-like mammal found in the Colorado Rockies 39. German car company previously owned by General Motors 40. lined with flat rectangles, often made of wood 41. tool that beats paper but loses to rock 42. study of the rights and duties of citizens 43. grown attached to each other, in botany 44. headlines are to articles as ___ are to books 45. sense of self 46. gelatinous material used as food for bacteria cultures 47. message at the end of a fable 50. space exploration org. 51. “___ the word”; instruction to keep quiet 52. Greek goddess of discord 56. letter between upsilon and chi 57. direct at a target 58. negative responses to a question
Color Your Own Voting Stickers
Fall Word Search
By LARA FOLEY
By GILLIAN RUSSO
APPLE PICKING AUTUMN CARDIGAN CHILLY CIDER CORNFIELD CRISP FALL FOLIAGE
Muhammad 20. frozen desserts you might eat after getting elected 23. Prussian Baron who fought in the American Revolution, and a county in New York 26. beginning, sometimes used in talking about a disease 27. hero you might eat while belonging to a political establishment 31. x or y, in a graph 32. type of lizard 33. one sixtieth of an hr. 34. middle values in sets of data 37. federal printing agency: Abbr. 40. Italian city and the setting of “The Taming of the Shrew” 41. cut or clip 42. fruity dessert you might eat while running for office 46. ___ acid; protein component 48. online, or using computer technology 49. mints you might eat while working for the state 53. techno musician Brikha 54. relating to the ear and hearing 55. C-___; network where you might watch federal gov. proceedings 59. “So You Want to Talk About ___”; book by
HALLOWEEN HARVEST HAYRIDE HOLIDAY LEAVES ORCHARD PUMPKIN PATCH SCARECROW SWEATER SPOOKY