On April 15, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that California will be providing a small, one-time stimulus check to some of the undocumented immigrants living in the state. In a press release, Newsom said, “We feel a deep sense of gratitude for people that are in fear of deportations that are still addressing essential needs of tens of millions of Californians.” He continued, “California is the most diverse state in the nation. Our diversity makes us stronger and more resilient. Every Californian, including our undocumented neighbors and friends, should know that California is here to support them during this crisis. We are all in this together.” Finally, he added, “I’m not here to suggest that $125 million is enough. But I am here to suggest it’s a good start, and I’m very proud it’s starting here in the state of California.” The money for this assistance will come from a mix of state funds and private philanthropic donations. Officials estimate that about 150,000 immigrants will receive assistance, with $500 being given to individuals, and a $1,000 cap on each household. No personal information will be required to get the support and the state government will not be distributing the funds. Instead, community-based nonprofits who have already established themselves in the immigrant community, will be dispersing the money.

While some Americans feel that undocumented immigrants may be undeserving of financial assistance, Newsom noted that 10 percent of the state’s workforce are undocumented immigrants, who paid more than $2.5 billion in state and local taxes last year. Furthermore, immigration advocates argue that, in a public health crisis, it is unsafe for everyone if essential workers can’t afford medical care or can’t afford to miss work when sick. In this way, it is crucial for the public health of the United States that all states take practical steps to ensure the health and safety of all workers.

Despite these arguments in favor of helping undocumented immigrants, Gov. Andrew Cuomo stated that New York will likely not provide emergency relief to undocumented immigrants living in New York. Cuomo stated, “When you are broke, it would be irresponsible to do these things. I do hope and believe the federal government should have a more inclusive policy.” While Cuomo hopes the federal government will do more, it is very unlikely the current administration will provide the much needed funds. Therefore, Cuomo has an ethical responsibility to provide the needed economic relief to all New Yorkers, regardless of citizenship status. Not only are many essential workers undocumented, but according to a 2017 study done by the Fiscal Policy Institute, “The work done by unauthorized immigrants adds $40 billion, or 3 percent, to New York’s GDP, with unauthorized immigrants making up 5 percent of the state’s labor force,” and that “unauthorized immigrants currently pay $1.1 billion in state and local taxes in New York.” Nationally, it is estimated that undocumented immigrants collectively pay about $11.6 billion in taxes every year, according to a study done by the Institution on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP). In fact, undocumented immigrants pay a higher tax rate than the top 1 percent income bracket. Considering that undocumented immigrants have been an important part of our economy for a long, long time and continue to be on the front lines during this pandemic, it is time for them to receive the assistance they are due.

While California’s relief efforts are important and needed, they are just a small step in the right direction. With the federal government failing to step up, it is becoming increasingly obvious that individual states need to do something themselves. If Cuomo truly wants to help minimize the impact of COVID-19 on New York, he should join California in providing direct financial help to undocumented immigrants, while also pushing for measures like universal health care, paid sick leave, hazard pay for essential workers and ensuring that all workers have protective gear. Without these steps, New York state is failing to support and protect some of its truest heroes.

Kate Turrell is a senior double-majoring in sociology and women, gender and sexuality studies.

The film rating system was established in 1968 to “help parents make informed viewing choices for their children.” Movie ratings, which range from G to NC-17, are determined by the Classification and Rating Administration (CARA), which is allegedly made up of an independent group of parents. The MPAA is facing increasing criticism for the disparate ratings they assign, particularly in regard to movies that depict women enjoying sex.

The MPAA overwhelmingly deems women’s sexuality as too explicit for large releases; meanwhile, depictions of male sexual pleasure are commonplace and are less likely to receive a restrictive rating, giving the films a commercial advantage. For example, director Jamie Babbit was forced to cut a female masturbation scene in “But I’m a Cheerleader” in order to get an R-rating instead of an NC-17 rating; the same year, “American Pie” was rated R for including the infamous apple pie scene. Many of the biggest theater chains and retail stores will not show or sell NC-17 rated movies as a matter of policy, and as a result, movies that include women’s sexuality are more likely to fail. “Afternoon Delight” director Jill Soloway was forced to cut scenes of women enjoying sex in order to earn the R-rating she had promised to distributors. That same year, Abdellatif Kechiche’s “Blue is the Warmest Color” was given an NC-17 rating for its lengthy depictions of lesbian sex.

Laughably, the MPAA appears to deem depictions of men performing oral sex on women as particularly heinous. In 2013, Evan Rachel Wood’s “Charlie Countryman” was only given an R-rating after parts from a scene in which Shia Labeouf’s character performs oral sex on Wood’s character were cut. Similarly, the MPAA rated Kimberly Peirce’s “Boys Don’t Cry” as NC-17 because the original cut depicted the main character, Brandon, wiping his mouth after performing oral sex on his girlfriend, Lana. The MPAA even stated that Lana’s orgasm was “too long.” In 2010, the MPAA gave “Blue Valentine” an NC-17 rating for an oral sex scene between the two leads, played by Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams.

As comical as the MPAA’s prudishness is, their rating system has real consequences. As Ryan Gosling explained in a 2010 interview, “You have to question a cinematic culture which preaches artistic expression, and yet would support a decision that is clearly a product of a patriarchy-dominant society, which tries to control how women are depicted on screen. The MPAA is okay supporting scenes that portray women in scenarios of sexual torture and violence for entertainment purposes, but they are trying to force us to look away from a scene that shows a woman in a sexual scenario, which is both complicit and complex. It’s misogynistic in nature to try and control a woman’s sexual presentation of self. I consider this an issue that is bigger than this film.”

Gosling is speaking to what film theorist Laura Mulvey calls “the male gaze.” Hollywood has traditionally run on a for men, by men basis; most of the films we watch tend to be dominated by the male point of view while female characters are restricted to being objects of desire. In fact, more than one in four women on-screen get partially naked, while less than one in 10 men do the same. The MPAA only reinforces the male gaze through its rating system. As HuffPost contributor Amanda Scherker explains, “Movies that have tons of gratuitous female nudity can still receive an R-rating, such as ‘Wolf of Wall Street.’ Movies that explore female pleasure or orgasms, on the other hand, are likely to be hit with an NC-17 rating.” Furthermore, in the same way that female nudity through the male gaze is considered less explicit than female erotic pleasure, violence, including sexual violence like rape, is regularly deemed acceptable in R-rated movies.

While the MPAA is unlikely to change its policies in regard to female sexual pleasure any time soon, there are alternatives to the MPAA rating system. Firstly, parents can research movies and set their own standards in terms of what is appropriate for their children to watch, rather than merely following the MPAA’s guide. Beyond that, websites like Common Sense Media and Kids-In-Mind.com provide a much more detailed rating system for parents. By refuting the MPAA’s old-fashioned rating system, we can open the doors to films that portray a more diverse expression of human sexuality beyond just the straight, male gaze.

Kate Turrell is a senior double-majoring in sociology and women’s, gender and sexuality studies.

The recent bail reform implemented by New York perfectly highlights both the hope that reform can bring and the immense amount of work that still needs to be done to make the New York criminal justice system more equitable. Conservatives have already begun to criticize the new bail reform as being “soft” on crime, likely foreshadowing more restrictions on the new law in the future. In this way, bail reform will likely reduce the number of incarcerated people being held in New York state jails and prisons, but it certainly will not radically change our criminal justice system in the way that conservatives worriedly purport.

To fully grasp the recent reform, it is important to understand how bail works. Simply put, bail is meant to ensure that a defendant will return to court. Jacob Silverman of HowStuffWorks put it best: “Bail works by releasing a defendant in exchange for money that the court holds until all proceedings and trials surrounding the accused person are complete. The court hopes that the defendant will show up for his or her court dates in order to recover the bail.” In most cases, a standard bail amount is set for each offense, but judges have broad discretion in setting the bail amount. Often, defendants cannot afford to post bail and are forced to turn to private bail bond companies; these companies will post bail for an individual in return for a nonrefundable fee that is about 10 to 15 percent of the bail amount and the remainder is covered by collateral such as a house or a car. Importantly, if a defendant cannot afford to pay bail or does not have the fee or collateral necessary to buy a bail bond, they will likely remain incarcerated until all legal matters are finalized in court.

This aspect of the system unfairly favors the wealthy, even in cases where they have committed what are considered to be more heinous crimes. Unfortunately, in many cases, innocent defendants are forced to stay in jail for years while waiting for their trials to be completed simply because they cannot afford to pay bail. For example, because his family could not afford his $3,000 bail, teenager Kalief Browder was incarcerated on Rikers Island for three years, during two of which he was in solitary confinement — only for his charges to be dropped for lack of evidence. Browder had been accused of stealing a backpack. Sadly, Browder later took his own life after sustaining irreparable traumas from his time on Rikers Island. While this highlights only one of the many problematic aspects of a cash bail system, it’s worth noting that black and Latino men have their bail set at higher rates as compared to white men who have committed similar crimes, indicating not only a class bias but a racial bias as well. A system that arbitrarily over-incarcerates poor people and people of color is an unjust system.

After years of mobilization from criminal justice activists, New York state has implemented a bail reform measure that went into effect on Jan. 1, 2020. This measure eliminated pretrial detention and cash bail for most misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies, with the exclusion of crimes such as sex offenses and witness tampering, which are legally deemed nonviolent but are nevertheless excluded from the bail reform. While the law brings new hope, it still falls short in many ways. Notably, the bail system remains unchanged for those charged with violent felonies and some misdemeanors. Furthermore, this bail reform will not lower the growing number of people facing incarceration for technical parole violations, which does not necessarily mean a defendant has committed a new crime; they have simply violated their parole rules. For perspective, a parole violation could be something as small as receiving a Facebook friend request from a past co-defendant, as described to me by a formerly incarcerated acquaintance.

Even with large-scale change already being unlikely, opponents of the reform have begun to use the specter of increasing crime as a scare tactic to vilify the law. Many conservative pundits have cited the case of Tiffany Harris, who was arrested and charged with slapping three Orthodox Jewish women in Brooklyn, released without bail and then rearrested for hitting another woman. While this case is certainly concerning, it’s important to understand that judges still have the authority in all cases to impose pretrial conditions like oversight by a case manager and referrals to treatment or counseling — something Harris received only after her second misdemeanor.

Despite the scare tactics, there is currently no evidence to support the belief that bail reform could lead to an increase in crime. In the words of The New York Times’ Editorial Board, “Experience elsewhere and ample research shows that there is no reason to believe New York’s reforms will lead to mayhem, or endanger the public.” With this in mind, we should embrace, not fear, the new bail reform law, and keep in mind that there is still much more work to be done.

For more information on bail reform, visit justicenotfear.org.

Kate Turrell is a senior double-majoring in sociology and women, gender and sexuality studies.

Unfortunately, these “alternatives” usually do little to actually reduce the number of people incarcerated. In fact, many expand the reach of the American prison system in unprecedented ways.

This issue reached a boiling point in the case of Rikers Island Correctional Facility. Rikers Island, located in New York, is notorious for being one of the most scandal-ridden prisons in the United States; it is well known for cases of sexual assault, physical abuse by correctional officers, use of solitary confinement and a laundry list of other horrible injustices. As such, it is not surprising that many people, on the left and the right, are celebrating the eventual shutdown of the facility. In the lead-up to the closure, Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office has been actively utilizing methods to diminish the daily population of Rikers, including “a reduction in low-level crime arrests, refocused law enforcement, the citywide Supervised Release program and expanded diversion programs,” helped by Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s “Raise the Age” bill, which ended New York state’s practice of charging all 16- and 17-year-olds as adults.

On the surface, these changes appear cost effective and humane, but sadly, this is not the whole story. As William Martin, a professor of sociology at Binghamton University, describes, “Raise the Age reforms led to an estimated $500 million in new youth jails, expanded sheriff budgets and the increasing supervision of youth.” Rather than keeping youths out of jail or prison, they are simply being transferred to youth facilities — which doesn’t lower the number of people incarcerated or limit the growth of the prison system.

While many states have also passed prison reform measures, these policies rarely live up to expectations. As Judah Schept, an associate professor in the School of Justice Studies at Eastern Kentucky University, notes, while most states have passed sentencing reform, it has often merely resulted in moving incarcerated people from state prisons to local jails, usually increasing a state’s overall corrections budgets.

For example, New York City hopes to move the inmates from Rikers Island into four, more localized jails throughout the city’s boroughs. Similarly, thousands of inmates in California have been moved out of state prisons into county jails, effectively lowering the number of people in state prisons, but doing little to actually minimize the number of incarcerated people. Meanwhile, California’s corrections budget has risen to an unprecedented $10 billion.

Similarly, “supervised release” may sound like a liberating alternative to incarceration, that is not always the case. In an article from 2014, James Kilgore, a research scholar, discusses how electronic monitoring, usually via an ankle bracelet, has become part of a trend of “repackaging” the prison system in a way that it is palatable to liberals, but that does little to actually reduce its reach. Kilgore notes that electronic monitoring is seen as a cost-effective alternative to incarceration that supposedly gives those who may have otherwise been incarcerated the opportunity to reenter society.

In reality, electronic monitors can cost their wearers $5 to $13 a day — and yes, people usually pay for their own monitors. The monitors often need charging every three to four hours, a factor that can limit mobility and block wearers from participating in an eight-hour work day. As a result, many of those surveilled through electronic monitoring feel so burdened by the logistics of their monitoring that they are effectively under house arrest. This clearly doesn’t allow the kind of freedom for them to reenter society in a meaningful way.

If we really want to make meaningful changes to the American prison system, it is crucial that we don’t fall into a trap of repainting the current system without fixing the broken pieces underneath. Just imagine what New York state might look like if that $500 million was allocated toward helping marginalized communities rather than incarcerating them.

Kate Turrell is a senior double-majoring in sociology and women, gender and sexuality studies.

Highlighting just how lucrative voluntourism has become, some tourists are willing to pay thousands for the opportunity to volunteer abroad. Unfortunately, because of its potential for profit, voluntourism rarely provides any meaningful changes for the local communities. As such, it is urgent that we become more critical of voluntourism as it works to enforce global inequities.

It is a fact that voluntourism would not exist and would not continue to exist without the global force of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism, a political-economic dogma that endorses limited regulation and little state intervention, has a huge role in contemporary global inequalities. In this way, the inequalities that exist between countries and enable tourists to travel to impoverished countries as volunteers is heavily dependent on the continuation of neoliberalism. An article in the Journal of Sociology by Nichole Georgeou and Colleen McGloin describes this phenomenon by writing, “Indeed, while globalized neoliberal capitalism continues to produce growing inequality, there will be increased ‘opportunities’ for voluntourism.”

Not only is voluntourism heavily reliant on the maintenance of inequality, it is also highly profitable, which incentivizes the maintenance of these inequalities. Georgeou and McGloin explain, “The neoliberal process of privatization and contracting out commodifies the activity of ‘doing development.’ Voluntourism companies sell a ‘development’ experience to consumers by appealing to their desire to ‘make a difference.’” Samantha Nutt, in a documentary by NowThis News on volunteer tourism, revealed some tourists pay upwards of $10,000 to volunteer. Tourists will pay Western companies for these volunteering opportunities, which means that local people rarely see any of the profits made off of their inequality. In this way, voluntourism follows the profit. Voluntourism experiences are not designed to make meaningful changes — they are designed to make Western tourists feel good and boost their résumés. As such, voluntourism does very little to help local people and most often actually inflicts great harm.

In a myriad of ways, voluntourism maintains global inequalities in ways that only harm local people. One of the most distressing examples of the harm caused by voluntourism is in the case of orphanages. As Jacob Kushner of The New York Times describes, orphanages are often kept purposefully squalid to guilt tourists into donating more money. Kushner writes that research “ … has found that ‘orphan tourism’ — in which visitors volunteer as caregivers for children whose parents died or otherwise can’t support them — has become so popular that some orphanages operate more like opportunistic businesses than charities, intentionally subjecting children to poor conditions in order to entice unsuspecting volunteers to donate more money.” Furthermore, there is immeasurable emotional damage caused to the children living in these orphanages, as they continue forming bonds with tourists who abandon them.

While voluntourists travel to developing countries with the hopes of having an authentic “helping” experience, these trips are specifically designed to please the tourists with little to no regard for the local people who are supposed to be receiving help in this transaction. In most cases, the work of voluntourists is either completely ineffective or extremely damaging. To actually help create stability and success for those in developing countries, it would be much more worthwhile to spend the money and energy toward dismantling neoliberalism and its enmeshed inequalities. Beyond this, we need to hold our friends and family members accountable for the ways they may be shaping these very global inequalities. Next time you’re browsing social media, think about the human impact of that voluntourist photo before you hit the like button.

Kate Turrell is a senior double-majoring in sociology and women, gender and sexuality studies.