As these justified recommendations do not hold the force of international law, solitary confinement continues to deteriorate the mental and physical health of anyone subject to it for the rest of their lives. While often utilized as a disciplinary measure, this practice has consistently been proven to be both cost and functionally ineffective. Often exacerbating the issues it intends to solve, its use further disproportionately harms several vulnerable minority groups. In light of America’s history of mass incarceration, immense prison populations and the recent influence COVID-19 has had in notoriously inadequate facilities, solitary confinement has been pushed to its limits. Even though New York’s comprehensive plans are finally falling in line with global human rights standards, they do not go far enough in curtailing this devastating correctional custom, nor in remedying the longstanding damage that’s already been done.

Not only does America have the largest prison population in the world, but our criminal justice system utilizes solitary confinement more frequently, and for longer periods than almost any other nation worldwide. For more than a decade, countless scientific studies have found strong ties between severe psychological distress and long-term solitary confinement. General research has shown that the stress from being isolated can lead to depression, panic attacks, irritability, paranoia and worsened preexisting mental health issues. In extreme scenarios, this intense loneliness can lead to self-harm or suicidal ideation and attempts, as many who experience confinement become almost incapable of living around other people. Although research that explores the human effects of solitary confinement often focuses on psychological aspects, the trauma it creates undoubtedly takes a physical toll on the body as well. Physicians have found several physical health issues this practice produces, including chronic headaches, fatigue, excessive sweating, sleep and digestive problems, heart palpitations, muscle pain and more. Along with vitamin D deficiency due to long periods spent out of the sun, the lack of physical activity confinement affords obviously makes it difficult to manage preexisting conditions like diabetes and high blood pressure.

The overarching physical and mental ramifications of solitary confinement, as well as the added extremity minors and individuals with disabilities face, represent just a fraction of the reasons why this practice is so utterly unethical. In some cases, these individuals’ vulnerabilities to assault or harassment require they be separated from general prison populations — for their own protection, of course — which ignores the fact that this segregation leads to further stigmatization.

Additionally, despite the most popular claims by proponents of solitary confinement, little evidence supports the notion that it increases the safety of prisons and/or greater communities. Absent of any type of rehabilitative capacity, these isolation measures are not found to influence the occurrence of violent prison outbursts in any way. Furthermore, instead of contributing to the production of outstanding citizens ready to reintegrate seamlessly into society following their release, studies have found that solitary confinement influences the exact opposite. Specifically, compared to those within the general population, people placed in solitary confinement are not only more likely to commit crimes when released but are more likely to commit a crime more violent than what got them locked up in the first place. Accordingly, any good intentions behind the purpose of solitary confinement are often innately misguided, if not downright corrupt.

In response to the total of adverse effects solitary confinement causes, the Mandela Rules not only categorize indefinite and prolonged solitary confinement as torture, but emphasize its prohibition in regards to especially vulnerable classes. Earlier this month, Governor Cuomo signed the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term (HALT) Solitary Confinement Act to end the use of long-term solitary confinement in jails and prisons throughout New York. Specifically, the act prohibits isolation for more than 15 consecutive days or 20 total days over two months. It also bars the practice entirely for the elderly, minors, pregnant women, individuals with disabilities and those with severe mental illnesses. The law also further reduces the number of disciplinary infractions traditionally warranting solitary confinement. It lastly establishes measures that focus specifically on the mental health-related consequences of extreme isolation, such as suicide risk screenings and the creation of “Residential Rehabilitation Units,” which are therapeutic out-of-cell programs. Essentially, officials hope their efforts to reform New York’s criminal justice system through what Cuomo calls “humane correction policies” will lead to more positive outcomes for incarcerated individuals transitioning back into the general population.

Unfortunately, not only do these crucial limitations not take effect for another year, but the campaign to stop the use of solitary confinement in this state has already been a long one. New York first agreed to improve the conditions of prison isolation following a lawsuit by the New York Civil Liberties Union in 2015. In 2019, a measure similar to the recent law was almost approved by the legislature. Ultimately, the proposal was met with extreme union pushback and the threat of veto by Governor Cuomo, who cited budget concerns about the high costs of institutional changes. Accordingly, these new developments are principally due to the difference in context as compared to a few years ago. On top of the pandemic, the Democratic legislative majority scored in the House of Representatives last November enabled the override of the governor’s vetoes. Additionally, the strength of independent and nongovernmental organization (NGO) activists in recent years have been a phenomenal force in spreading the message that solitary confinement, in any form, is torture. This is a similar case for individuals and their family members previously detained at Rikers Island and other jails in New York City, who have called out the rise in the proportion of inmates living in isolation in comparison to total falling jail populations.

Although some of the initiatives present in the HALT Act have already been adopted in the city, they’re small restrictions often ignored by authorities in detention centers. Since the ban on solitary confinement for those with serious mental illness or those under 22, enacted in 2015, correctional officials have been caught transferring young detainees to other state institutions without these restrictions in place. Clearly, in any case, reform is necessary at all levels of implementing solitary confinement. In March, the New York City Board of Correction, an independent oversight agency for the city’s jail system, and Mayor Bill de Blasio tried to show their agreement with this position by proposing new rules which would “end” solitary confinement in New York City jails, and close the prison facility on Rikers Island by 2026. However, this new plan simply replaces the use of solitary confinement with an alternative disciplinary system that still isolates individuals from the greater prison population. This new framework, dubbed the Risk Management Accountability System (RMAS), is said to take effect this November for the purpose of separating people in response to their violence and holding them accountable through a “swift, certain and fair” process. Keeping in mind that de Blasio has emphasized that these efforts represent city officials “making good” on their commitment to ban solitary confinement altogether, it’s easy to see why these proposals have been met with criticism from abolition advocates.

In June 2020, Unlock the Box, a national campaign striving to end the use of solitary confinement, released a special report on the influence of COVID-19 in all forms of detention centers and, naturally, on the use of solitary confinement. While substantiating the belief that infection rates are higher behind bars than in outside populations, three times to be exact, Unlock the Box strikingly found that at least 300,000 people had been placed in isolation since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This represents an increase of almost 500 percent compared to previous levels. Additionally, although the use of solitary confinement has been thought to be a possible mediation tactic to the spread of infection in jails and prisons, it’s been proven to do the opposite. After the implementation of unit-wide lockdowns to curb the virus, some inmates have reportedly been confined to their cells for the daily 22-hour limit in institutions with particularly poor ventilation and minimal protective gear. Logically, if the solution to catching the virus is being put in solitary confinement, people aren’t going to report their symptoms.

Accordingly, on top of the extreme physical and psychological harm solitary inflicts upon incarcerated individuals, the complete lack of substance and credibility it provides, especially during the pandemic, underscores the necessity for its prohibition. Targeting this problem at the root, one of the most significant ways to reduce the number of people in solitary confinement is to limit the levels of greater prison populations. While further aiding in the fight against COVID-19, quarantine and medical isolation do not ever need to resemble a practice internationally recognized as torture.

Miranda Jackson-Nudelman is a senior majoring in political science.

To better contextualize this far-reaching and targeted change in American criminality, studies have found that in comparison to anti-Asian offenses reported in 2019, official reports to state and federal authorities as well as “unofficial” ones to independent reporting centers have all increased dramatically since the start of the pandemic. Not too long ago, the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino released a report which documented the changes in hate crime patterns across 16 of America’s largest cities from 2019 to 2020. Between the cities analyzed, the Center found that the total percentage of anti-Asian hate crimes rose 149 percent in the span of a year, as the number jumped from 49 documented cases in 2019 to 122 cases in 2020. In certain areas like Philadelphia, Boston and certain parts of California like Los Angeles and San Jose, the specific number of incidents reported to police more than doubled. In New York City, the amount of Asian-specific hate crimes in 2020 was over nine times that of 2019. The Center additionally discovered that the increase in hate crimes against Asian individuals in 2020 coincides with a comprehensive decrease in the total amount of hate crimes reported against all groups in 2019. Put differently, as the amount of Asian-specific hate crimes were skyrocketing, the overall percentage of hate crimes reported in America’s 16 largest cities dropped 7 percent in 2020, from 1,845 cases in 2019 to 1,717 in 2020. Essentially, this information highlights the fact that hate crimes, along with similar tactics of intimidation and discrimination, are systematically targeting those of Asian descent in contemporary America.

To extend statistical observation to 2021 as well, a nonprofit organization called Stop AAPI Hate has been recording, in detail, the incidents continually received by its reporting center over the course of the pandemic. While broadly tracking all cases of discrimination against AAPI in America, the organization has recently published a national report detailing the hate incidents received by its reporting center from the period of March 19, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021. Their findings cover the 3,292 different incident reports received in 2020, with 503 occurring in 2021, for a total of 3,795 discriminatory events reported. Organized along the lines of state divisions, sites and types of discrimination, as well as the ethnicity, gender and age of respondents, there are quite a few discoveries worth mentioning. For one, in regards to which states had the most reported incidents, California trumps the rest with an incredible 1,691 reports, followed by New York with 517, Washington with 158 and Texas with 103. In terms of the site of discrimination, out of all the incidences reported, most occur in businesses at 35.4 percent, followed by public streets and sidewalks at 25.3 percent, as well as online at 10.8 percent. In relation to the types of discrimination reported, the overwhelming majority consists of verbal harassment and name-calling with 68.1 percent, followed by deliberate avoidance and shunning at 20.5 percent and then physical assault at 11.1 percent. Lastly, out of all the respondents, 42.2 percent are Chinese, 68 percent are women and the highest-targeted age group is 26 to 35 years old at 31 percent, although they’re closely trailed by other age groups: 36 to 45 years old (20 percent), 18 to 25 years old (16 percent), 46 to 60 years old (14 percent), 12 to 17 years old (12 percent) and 61 to 75 years old (6 percent). Possibly most jarring are the results related to respondents’ age, as this horrifyingly illuminates the fact that children are no safer than adults when it comes to targeted hate, from ignorance to wholly inescapable attacks.

Despite the extensive information presented by Stop AAPI Hate, thoroughly illustrating the degree of vulnerability Asian populations face in America, the report still emphasizes that the number of hate incidents reported only represent a fraction of those that actually occur. While this situation is partially due to a lack of self-reporting, their information remains valuable nonetheless for its all-inclusive understanding of discrimination, which stands in direct contrast to the government’s narrow application of a hate crime. For general reference, a “hate crime” is a traditional offense with the added element of bias. The FBI specifically defines a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender or gender identity.” Dually significant and restrictive, this standard definition forwards the notion that hate, even when acted upon in some capacity, is not a crime in and of itself, unless another explicit criminal activity is involved. As a result, all the discrimination, harassment and general racist and hateful acts thrown toward America’s Asian population simply cannot lead to a criminal conviction against the perpetrator, as well as a remedy for their victim(s).

Unfortunately, lately it seems as if even anti-Asian hate crimes involved with added criminal behavior like unwarranted physical assault and great bodily injury may not be correctly designated as such, if even charged at all. Last month in Manhattan’s Chinatown, a 36-year-old Chinese man was walking home when he was abruptly stabbed in the back by a stranger, which put him in critical condition for several days before he stabilized. However, as the 23-year-old perpetrator hadn’t said a word to the victim before the attack, prosecutors claimed there simply wasn’t enough evidence to prove there was a racist motive involved. Though the New York Police Department originally said the attacker would be charged with second-degree murder as a hate crime, court records show no hate crime charges were filed against him. He was ultimately charged with attempted murder, completely separate from a hate crime. The trend of abuse against those of Asian descent has revealed that nothing is an isolated event anymore, and the recent attacks which took the lives of eight people in Georgia, six of whom were Asian women, may only be surprising for its scale of fatality. The event stands as the latest example of both the continued strength of anti-Asian sentiment during the pandemic as well as much of the public’s hesitation and authorities above all to call even lethal attacks against the Asian community “racially motivated hate crimes.”

In regards to this latest publicized attack, 21-year-old murderer Robert Aaron Long explicitly denied his motivation is based on racial biases and has instead told officials that the shootings were essentially an effort to curb his “sex addiction.” While Atlanta Police Department has begrudgingly acknowledged that other people have called Long’s actions a hate crime, they’ve continually stressed, along with the other authorities on the case, that they’re still too “early in the investigation” to finalize a motive. As of now, Long has only been charged with eight counts of murder and homicide and one count of aggravated assault. This shooting, along with nearly every other recent attack targeting the Asian population, highlights the difficulties involved in claiming a perpetrator is driven by a racial motive. While always influenced by subjectivities to some extent, without “strong,” tangible evidence, such as witnessed or recorded hateful verbal statements or incriminating social media posts, proof of an attacker’s racial discrimination can be easily denied. More important now than ever, the debate over what legally qualifies as anti-Asian bias is hindered by the multifaceted ambiguity such a bias represents. Aside from slurs and other derogatory phrases, there isn’t a symbol of anti-Asian hatred “comparable to that of a swastika or a noose.” In the words of Lu-in Wang, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, there isn’t a “recognizable prototype” for anti-Asian hate crimes like there is for those “often more clear-cut” attacks on Black, Jewish and LGBTQIA+ lives.

Although the threat posed by anti-Asian hate crimes within America reached widespread recognition almost immediately into the pandemic, it seems as if this situation has progressed in a way that goes beyond mere consistency. While this hate-fueled development may be unwavering in the sense that it’s far from improved today, when looking at the data available, it also seems realistic to say that it’s gotten worse. The truth of its further deterioration can plausibly be related to the influence of former president Donald Trump’s infamous rhetoric on the American public. As he arguably coined the term “China virus,” of course with the help of fellow GOP lawmakers, Trump proceeded to weaponize the narrative from his nearly untouchable presidential position. However, anti-Asian attacks could simply seem to have worsened due to a higher number of older, first-generation immigrants more confidently and frequently reporting hate crimes. As a national standard, many first-generation immigrants, especially older groups, have been found to report their criminal abuses considerably less than younger, successive generations of immigrants. Often faced with tricky language barriers, the incredibly justified fear of having their immigration status questioned or even facing retaliation from the perpetrator, victims of anti-Asian discrimination often stay quiet rather than trying to report a crime. Furthermore, adding to the guise of ever-increasing severity, the media may finally just be giving the wrongdoings committed against Asian populations the attention they’ve always deserved but didn’t receive several months ago.

Ultimately, whether or not the dangers facing Asian immigrants and AAPI in America today are getting worse, it’s an incredibly real and fatal issue continuing to plague our nation. Given that this country has a rich history of xenophobic and particularly anti-Asian discrimination, the present situation is understandable to say the least. Accordingly, modern-day prejudice can be seen as an extension of long-standing biases against the Asian community that have persisted since the first generations of Asian immigrants arrived here. While the hateful rhetoric peddled by higher authorities no doubt added fuel to this fire over the course of the pandemic, it arguably would not, and could not, have had the influence it did without the messages’ ties to powerful myths. This sentiment is echoed by Janelle Wong, an Asian American studies professor at the University of Maryland. She said that despite the contribution the language of political leaders has had, “I don’t think we would have seen the spike in anti-Asian bias without a pretty strong foundation rooted in the ‘forever foreigner’ stereotype.” The “forever foreigner” stereotype Wong referred to, according to Li Zhou for Vox, is a narrative that has been utilized for decades to continually “other” Asian populations and cement a distinction between an “American” and a “foreigner.” The stereotype perpetuates the notion that Asian groups living within America are fundamentally foreign, regardless of their citizenship and birthplace, and can never be fully American no matter what they do.

Traditionally, this ignorant type of thinking has produced profound consequences, influencing everything from the creation of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Asian Exclusion Act included in 1924’s Immigration Act and the Japanese “internment” camps deemed necessary during World War II. Despite the evident ethnic distinctions in these acts, many of us already know that they contributed to the racialization of several Asian ethnicities outside these specific targets. As a result, they comprehensively affected all people of Asian descent with their legalized discrimination and sanctioned bias by policymakers and the public alike. Today, however, at least some solace can be taken in the fact that more and more people in power are not only reflecting America’s diverse reality, but understand progressive action must be taken to correct long-standing inequalities. According to NBC News, this year in January, President Biden attempted furthering racial equity by signing a memorandum denouncing the recent discrimination against the AAPI community. The memo is said to be “part of a group of racial equity-focused executive orders, memorandums and actions, and in part issues guidance on how the Justice Department should respond to the heightened number of anti-Asian bias incidents.” Earlier this month, New York State Senate’s Finance Committee passed the Hate Crimes Analysis & Review Act in an effort to improve the state’s ability to monitor and respond to hate crimes, as well as collect and release hate crime data. Specifically, the act would require New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services to “maintain and make public statistical data about hate crimes, while… [offering] a more robust analysis of the hate crimes that are occurring in New York state,” according to the New York State Senate.

Most recently, the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act was introduced in Congress by Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii), which broadly aims to “increase Justice Department oversight of coronavirus-related hate crimes, provide support for state and local law enforcement agencies and make hate crime information more accessible to Asian American communities” according to CNBC. NBC News reports that the first goal is specifically thought to be achieved by “[dedicating] an official at the Department of Justice to review and prioritize hate crimes reported to federal, state and local law enforcement.” Further, the legislation “[issues] guidance for state and local law enforcement to establish online reporting of hate crimes and incidents in multiple languages, [expands] public education campaigns that are both culturally competent and linguistically appropriate, as well as [collects] data on hate crimes.” Although legislation itself obviously cannot fix the xenophobia and racism so deeply embedded in American society, it’s a valuable step in the right direction in the fight against injustice. Besides simply garnering attention for this tremendous issue, those who truly and intimately care are striving to fill the gaping holes in legal protections so fervently exposed this past year by our most vulnerable groups. Better late than never, this clearly emerging counter-trend to quell the unfounded hatred against Asian populations in America proves that the cries of victims and their allies will not remain passively ignored.

Miranda Jackson-Nudelman is a senior majoring in political science.

Unsurprisingly, excessively mixing chemical cocktails on the sidewalks and roads of our communities does more than straightforwardly create slush. Mass amounts of de-icers harm our pets and other wildlife that walk on and ingest the mixture. It erodes vast amounts of public infrastructure and severely contaminates an abundance of fresh water sources. Ultimately, de-icers are not the cure-all solution for snow shoveling blues, and, just as one may have already guessed from living in a consumption-based society, deceitful marketing is just the tip of the iceberg for de-icing’s truly extensive destruction.

Although all de-icers basically have the same fundamental objective, there are many different types of these products on the market. While liquid de-icer has been found to act faster than granular products and speed up melting processes when used in combination with them, chloride-based de-icers such as rock salt and ice-melt salt remain the very popular alternatives across America. The principal difference between each type of de-icer regards the different chemical compositions of each, which work best at different temperatures and accordingly influences a product’s comprehensive literal and cost effectiveness. Whereas rock salt is essentially just sodium chloride, ice-melt salt instead uses a formula of sodium chloride with magnesium chloride or calcium chloride pellets. Besides the initial traction rock salts provide, unlike its de-icing counterparts, there’s generally about a 20 degrees Fahrenheit difference between the melting points of these two leading wintertime aids. For rock salt, the melting point is around 15 degrees Fahrenheit, while for ice melt salt with magnesium chloride, it’s closer to -10 degrees Fahrenheit. Lastly, for ice melt salt with calcium chloride, it’s around -20 degrees Fahrenheit. Even though several classes of non-chloride de-icers exist, its higher cost and lower availability results in its infrequent use on roads and sidewalks and higher utilization in airports. Further, although completely non-chemical products like sawdust and sand certainly exist to mitigate the issues born from snow and ice, not only are they less effective than other more enhanced products, they arguably create a whole separate issue requiring labor-intensive removal.

Regardless of the specific pros and cons that rock salts and ice melts may individually possess or even share, the single most significant factor which unites these two products relates to the dangers they pose. Firstly, and perhaps the most obvious, when just about every inch of public and private walkways are inescapably covered in de-icing products, pets and wildlife alike are immediately put at risk. In the case of pets, although there are certain booties you can buy which protect their paws from damage, though investing in this specific solution almost guarantees struggling with your dog to get them on and walk with them. While not always the greatest option, they can protect your pet’s paws from being cut on corrosive and jagged rock salts. For our less fortunate, bootie-less friends, however, the salts don’t only burn open wounds, but get stuck in paws and cause dryness, irritation and even bleeding. Even if they’re not ingested outside when a pet tries to lick the salt off, de-icers could just as easily be tracked back into the home and ingested then, which is especially dangerous if your pet develops a taste for the salt and tries to eat it from the bag kept at home. Although wiping your pets’ paws off immediately after getting home with a damp paper towel or cloth is indisputably the best option, ingesting de-icer can still happen to any animal when unknowingly eating snow or vegetation that’s been exposed to some of the product. Especially in the case of wildlife in more rural areas, it has been found by Emilie Snell-Rood, associate professor in ecology, evolution and behavior at the University of Minnesota, that “road salt is kind of like potato chips for animals.” As the de-icer attracts creatures like moose and deer, both of which are more active later in the day, the added risk of harmful, if not fatal, late night collisions is immediately introduced for both parties.

While of course the size of an animal, the specific type of de-icer and how much of it they ate all factor into how serious of a reaction they’ll have to its ingestion, at high enough levels, ice melts can rapidly elevate a pet’s sodium levels and lead to tremors or seizures. The most common issue for pets in particular that eat de-icers are an upset stomach, intense dehydration, vomiting, diarrhea or a possible ulceration to the mouth. Even “pet-friendly” de-icing products usually contain urea or magnesium chloride, both of which are two very common chemicals found in ice-melt salts and threatening to pets’ well-being. Despite a growing number of products being labeled and sold as pet-friendly to appease their consumer bases, veterinarians have found that several contain at least some ingredients that aren’t actually safe for pets. Both companies like Safe Paw Ice Melter, introduced by Gaia Enterprises Inc. in 1995, and Safe-T-Pet, introduced by Morton Salt Inc. in 2010, admit to have never done animal studies on their products. Although there are some products that have been found to be at least safer for pets, like urea — an ingredient actually found in fertilizers — a de-icer product that is 100 percent safe for animals everywhere still has yet to make its debut.

Apart from the adverse impacts de-icers can have on pets and other wildlife, they pose just as serious of an environmental concern when considering their effect on sidewalks and roads themselves, as well as the soil, plants and trees. A 2005 study conducted by Iowa State University focusing on the effect of chloride-based de-icers on concrete discovered that out of the five main de-icing compounds tested, calcium chloride had the most damaging effects on the overall strength of the concrete due to its chemical reaction with the salt. Essentially, during the experimentation, calcium chloride ions penetrated into the concrete deeper and faster than any other compound, which caused more direct structural damage. Despite their innately damaging effects, chloride de-icers are actually the most popular class of de-icers for their advertised low costs and widespread availability. Compared to chloride-based de-icers, acetate and agricultural de-icers actually showed significantly less structural damage on concrete, arguably connected to their high prices and general inaccessibility. Other studies conducted on chloride-based de-icers have also found that the long-term accumulation of the chemical in soil can result in reduced levels of soil’s permeability and fertility, as well as an increase in its alkalinity and density, which inhibits plant growth. Roadside vegetation, in particular, are impacted by de-icers when chloride is absorbed through its roots or begins to accumulate on a plant’s branches and leaves. Even moderate amounts of sodium exposure can cause symptoms for the plant similar to those of a drought, like stunted growth, brown and falling leaves or needles and dying limbs, according to the Minnesota Stormwater Manual.

De-icers present another threat to the environment as they melt together with ice and snow, creating a highly saturated substance that finds its way into groundwater reserves, storm drains and other fresh water sources like rivers and reservoirs, where they continue to stay for the sole reason that there aren’t mechanisms to remove it. Primarily in more urban areas, the most significant reason chemicals like chloride are found in groundwater is due to the use of de-icing salts. While following seasonal distribution, concentrations of de-icer chemicals can further disrupt the natural circulation of surface water because of strong salinity stratification. More plainly, because water containing salt has a higher density than water that doesn’t, it will sink to the bottom of the body and result in chemical layering which disrupts its mixing patterns. Additionally, according to the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, compared to rivers and lakes, small ponds and streams are the most impacted by de-icers as the likelihood of dilution and dispersion of the salt is lower in those environments. As it’s extremely expensive to try and remove excess salinity in freshwater sources, it’s often left unrectified and poised to negatively affect any organism that consumes it. Even though de-icer at high amounts in water can produce an extremely unpleasant taste, organisms that live in the water, or people that swim in it, are exposed to new risks born from the increase in bacteria and toxins that come with ecological imbalances.

Besides getting into a situation where you’ve exposed your external body to contaminated water, it can also be accidentally swallowed, which produces a whole new host of problems for those with “low-sodium diets due to diabetes or other health issues,” according to Joshua Rapp Learn for Smithsonian Magazine. This is even more noteworthy if the body of water put at risk by de-icer usage happens to be a significant source for an entire population. Besides having an abundance of freshwater sources, Binghamton is intersected by two major rivers, the Chenango River and Susquehanna River, the latter of which is actually the population’s main source of drinking water. Due to this situation, it seems wise to at least consider how our use of de-icers can further adversely affect our natural water supply, as well as the habitat of countless aquatic and terrestrial animals.

While some contaminant levels are legally allowed to exceed recommended health guidelines, additional chemicals are wholly unregulated and still prevalent in our sources. In water safety tests conducted from 2004 to 2009, 13 chemicals were routinely found in Binghamton’s water supply to exceed established health guidelines. For reference, the national average is four. More recently, a February 2020 study of our drinking water found at least 10 different contaminants in it, all exceeding the levels health guidelines have prescribed as safe for consumption. This probably isn’t shocking to most Binghamton University students, as we are advised to avoid drinking the tap water and invest in a filtration system regardless of whether our residence is on or off campus. Even though de-icers may only be a marginal influence on the other factors at play here, this is undoubtedly exacerbating the problem at hand. Fundamentally, the seemingly mitigable hazards brought on by de-icers are as indiscriminate as they are immediately pressing. While the true severity of these super salts is almost unbelievable when looking at a single, isolated externality, when taken together, it’s clear that we must wean off our addictive dependency on deicers before reaching a level of destruction we can’t return from.

Miranda Jackson-Nudelman is a senior majoring in political science.

The actual amount of public personalities who suffer tangible consequences for their offenses at the hands of these movements are absolutely dismal, especially in comparison to the sheer number of people called out in the first place. Still, the culture’s existence has caused many — mostly those who’ve lived within bubbles of impunity all their lives — to panic nonetheless. Politicized as an affront to American liberties, particularly being our First Amendment right to free speech, it’s painted as a brutally indiscriminate strategy of ostracizing the (mostly) innocent in the name of “political correctness.” Of course, no one is safe from the unforgiving “PC police.” Although calls to “cancel cancel culture” have undoubtedly become just as pervasive as the calls to cancel powerful individuals in the first place, the fears about the great threat it poses was most recently exemplified in the 2020 Republican National Convention. Even before the first night of speakers in closed meetings, delegates voted for a number of resolutions including one called “Resolution Upholding The First Amendment To The Constitution Of The United States Of America In The Response To The Coronavirus Pandemic And The Cancel Culture Movement.” Notwithstanding the apparent conflation of COVID-19 with the cancellation of problematic celebrities, the resolution described cancel culture as a means to erase history, encourage lawlessness and violate citizens’ “free exchange of ideas, thoughts and speech.” While the resolution was accepted and adopted by the Republican National Committee, the party’s official platform remains the same as it was in 2016.

At its core, modern mainstream internet activism is seen as an anger-fueled game of naming and shaming the elite and their interests, and an inability of the masses to forgive and move on. The belief that the culture is unable to impact real change is influenced by its practitioners favoring outright “canceling” individuals, rather than giving them the necessary time and space to respond to others’ grievances with compassion and improved behavior. By oversimplifying the issues of interest that garner widespread attention and caring more about taking part in a trend than fighting for justice on victims behalf, the term “canceled” itself has become replicated in such a variety of settings, by so many different actors. With such frequency, it’s almost rendered meaningless. What could theoretically consist of a straightforward discussion of a perpetrator’s specific crime and the possibilities for their societal retribution becomes something too nuanced to be adequately or accurately understood. While there may be some truth to these ideas, they crucially delegitimize the principles of social justice and equality which foundationally fuel the movements. Even more so, the position obscures the biased and contradictory nature innate to its accusations, as well as the place of significant privilege from which they’re born.

The great irony of the “canceling cancel culture” debate, specifically being the crux of its criticism, regards the fact that what’s now considered to be so very threatening to our freedom of speech is quite literally its practical enjoyment. Despite claims otherwise, to “call out” and “cancel” others are acts of free speech in and of themselves, well within our Constitutional rights. Accordingly, denunciations of these cultures, as well as efforts to eliminate them completely, are simply misguided attempts to both weaponize and constrict our fundamental rights. Whereas those who criticize society’s elite in the first place rarely have an influence equal to the people they’re challenging, it should be clear that the divide seemingly caused by cancel culture has actually been in place for decades. Those who have always possessed the social, political and economic means to compel another’s meaningful atonement have long been shielded by the population’s limited access to tools that allow them to direct their criticisms sufficiently and expeditiously. In a time when the range of social media’s capabilities are as excessive as they are utilized, cultural gatekeepers must succumb to their lack of control over their engagement with mass audiences.

Despite its widespread controversy, the production and expression of these longstanding ideologies of political correctness cannot be stopped, nor should they. Firstly, history has shown that even attempting to do so is both completely futile and misguidedly contradictory. Its foundational power to give voices to the voiceless and let no wrong deed go at least unnoticed, if not unpunished, is a crucial stepping stone to a truly, equally accountable society. Even though those who have always been the most immune to challengers now seek to silence an entire cultural movement aimed at them, it’s still far from the unconstitutional threat the leading critics denote it as being. “Cancel culture,” seen as the career-shattering, repressive mob mentality which shuns a simple “difference in opinion,” is a completely fictitious construction by celebrities whose feelings were hurt in the process of being rightfully called out for causing harm to others. Although in amounts and through means historically unforeseen, in this way, cancel culture not only doesn’t exist, but it never has.

Miranda Jackson-Nudelman is a senior majoring in political science.

To be clear, online news consumers are not as “unsuspecting” as they once were when confronted with restricted online accessibility mediated by subscription requirements. Considering the exponential growth of American subscription-based media culture in the last decade, it may be unsurprising to find that 20 percent of all Americans pay for their news as compared to the 16 percent seen last year. While a majority of those paying for their news only subscribe to one source, these few successful publishers raking in the highest share of consumers are often the most expansive, national brands. This “winner-takes-most” model is reflected in the Reuters Institute report’s finding that “around half of those that subscribe to any online or combined package in the United States use The New York Times or The Washington Post.” Although paid news aggregators like Apple News+ are still relatively popular, they’re certainly not as common as subscriptions to singular, dominating news brands.

It’s worth emphasizing that the online news brands having the most success with paid subscription models are notoriously left-leaning. Despite widespread penny-pinching in the wake of the pandemic, both The New York Times and the Atlantic actually had substantial increases in digital subscribers. The New York Times even suspended its paywalls in March after facing righteous criticism, for around two months at least. Although studies have shown that CNN is the most trusted news source for Democrats, there are countless others with a similarly high percentage of accepted reliability. Notably trailing closely — ordered by decreasing percentages of leftist trust — are NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, PBS, The New York Times, the BBC, MSNBC, The Washington Post, NPR and Time Magazine. Conversely, Fox News is the most relied-upon source for any right-leaning American, but the key distinction is that this favoritism has made Fox News the most trusted Republican source by a long shot. Out of the entire group, 65 percent claim to put their trust in Fox News, followed by less than half as many who rely on Sean Hannity’s radio show and Rush Limbaugh’s radio show in a close third spot. Predictably, the most-trusted news sources for the left wing are the absolute least-trusted ones for the right wing, and vice versa. Nonetheless, the main takeaway is that essentially, online news presence and its steadily rising commoditization is a leftist’s game.

The increase in the proportion of Americans who pay for any type of online news source has been dramatic since 2014 for two main reasons. The first bump in subscription growth occurred right after Trump’s election, when many young and/or left-leaning voters sought more “reliable” publications to stay on top of the never-ending political drama. The second increase encompasses both political parties as, due to the pandemic, Americans began fully immersing themselves in COVID-19 coverage. The foundation which influences these subscription trends comes from a deeper reasoning than just convenience or finding “good” journalism worthy of support. Taken together, these two reasons for surges in American news consumption have reinforced greater partisan pressures spawned from the antagonistic relationship between the distrust of public service media and wariness toward polarized politicians from both sides of the political spectrum.

Although distrust in the news media has soared to historic heights worldwide, this issue’s sentiment is transparently reflected in both left- and right-leaning groups in the United States. The severity of this distrust is far from equal, as 39 percent of left-leaning voters believe they can trust the news overall but only 13 percent of right-leaning voters agree. Despite a silent majority of Americans who still prefer “objective” journalism amid our greater polarized landscape, the proportion of those who want their news to coincide with their personal views is still significant. When asked the question, “Thinking about the different kinds of news available to you, do you prefer getting news from sources that share/challenge/have no point of view?” 60 percent of Americans chose no point of view, compared to the 30 percent wanting a shared view, and the last 10 percent wishing to be challenged. Primarily shaped by the people at the forefront of ideological extremity, the proportion of strong partisans has been steadily rising since 2013. Clearly, a substantial number of Americans have conceptualized the news’ “truth” and their personal “point of view” as carefully entwined principles, if not entirely synonymous.

Essentially, with levels of societal distrust for most news media running rampant, further fragmenting our deeply politically polarized country, the last thing that’ll help either situation is constructing obstacles to news accessibility. Obviously, some people are still going to desire only hearing their news from ideologically aligned representatives, but the fact still stands that a majority of Americans don’t. Preferences within and between both the left wing and right wing concede enough as to allow the possibility for truly objective media — except without the price tag. “Reliable” journalism shouldn’t have to be viewed through the lens of a party identification, nor should it be constructed as a type of club necessitating membership to access. In a historically “Red Scare” world superseded by “fake news” and commanding capital as king, it’s not enough to just separate the facts from fiction, but halt the production of knowledge inequality in its tracks.

Miranda Jackson-Nudelman is a senior majoring in political science.

Today, the situation has evolved into what Dr. Margot Kushel, a national expert on homelessness and medical professor at the University of California San Francisco, has called a “crisis within a crisis.” Highlighting the poorer well-being of homeless populations compared to their societal counterparts even before COVID-19 hit with full force, Kushel also noted the consequence of widespread institutional restrictions and closures on this group as well. While it’s true that the limited operation of businesses has cut down on access to food and water, significantly for those who critically depend on their local businesses, it also extends to the operations and to the availability of shelter space. In an effort to get as many people as possible off the streets, shelters country-wide have been struggling to simultaneously increase their capacity while still maintaining proper social distancing standards. This isn’t only targeted at keeping shelter occupants safe, but the facility’s critical operators, volunteers and workers too. These circumstances are further complicated by the fact that although others who live in shared quarters with common interpersonal exchanges are also incredibly susceptible to contracting disease — like those incarcerated or hospice residents — homeless individuals are faced with separate and unique sets of challenges.

Being the most transparent issue of the bunch, homeless populations consistently interact with the general public more than any other high-risk groups. Often stuck in a never-ending cycle of confinement to poor environments, the homeless often face little access to living and cleaning facilities which help maintain and improve personal hygiene and overall health. As a consistent result, they have rates of respiratory infections far higher than those of the general population. Although standardly plaguing the lives of these individuals truly trying to survive in any way they can, intensifying stress levels met with increasingly enforced isolation greatly exacerbates the threats posed by COVID-19. Apart from the physical risk, the mental toll this time has had on us all has also been comprehensively recognized. However, all these factors combined puts insurmountable stress on the serious mental illnesses and health conditions a great amount of homeless populations have been afflicted with.

Whereas the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the main federal agency that oversees programs targeted at homeless populations, it has not required any of its branches to conduct investigations into either the infection and/or death rates of this understatedly vulnerable and high-risk group. This may be unsurprising, as our national response to COVID-19 has been, for the most part, a sentiment along the lines of “Leave it up to the states to deal with the details.” Failing to implement a unified country-wide strategy, our governments’ lack of coordination, and even simple willpower, to trace the pandemic’s response on homeless populations and provide more resources for testing is more than worthy of criticism. Although this statement may lead some to point to $4 million and more Congress allocated to homeless-specific programs as part of the Coronavirus, Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act, such a move would be in vain. It’s important to note that not only did this money take months to get into communities, but took even longer for the government to authorize its localized use.

In Binghamton specifically, over a million dollars were received in June as a result of two rounds of federal grants, including the Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG). Mayor Richard C. David pledged the funds would go to nonprofits providing help to the homeless, low-income families and small businesses affected by COVID, as well as toward general testing. Still, he stressed the funds’ main challenge was the absence of “authorization from the federal government to distribute it.” Over a month later, it was announced that the HUD had authorized the city of Binghamton to finally begin spending its much-needed relief funding. Essentially, the government’s neglect to timely and effectively distribute aid into communities, and further, to actually authorize its use, not only prolonged citizens’ desperation during such a crucial moment, but increased local competition over a finite pool of funds. As time went on, not only were a higher number of people seeking the same benefits, but there became more institutional areas — out of the multiple already considered — to which the aid could contribute. It’s hard to imagine that any one individual, let alone someone with no safety net to begin with, would’ve been able to dramatically improve their financial and housing situation from the government’s pitiful helping hand.

By definition, a stay-at-home order is impossible to comply with when you have nowhere to go. With no nationwide mechanism in place to measure, never mind combat, the effect of COVID-19 on such a substantial and defenseless part of our population, we continue to expand the rift of disproportionate care targeted to those in need. Putting its federal obligations in the hands of even more disorganized and resourceless groups, HUD has neglected to utilize its Homeless Management Information System, arguably, during one of the most necessary times to do so. Though providing community guidance on the type of information to collect if desired by local governments and organizations, the deeper issue exposed during this sub-crisis regards the absence of structural and institutionally based safety nets. The lesson to learn from this country’s neglectful attitude toward its homeless populations, especially now, is straightforwardly that they don’t care. To make any progress in damage control, aimed at reversing decades worth of mounting challenges since ignored for our homeless populations, a shift in our cultural attitude is imperative. In the words of Bobby Watts, chief executive of National Health Care for the Homeless Council, we must understand once and for all: “Housing is health care.”

Miranda Jackson-Nudelman is a senior majoring in political science.

Although toeing the party line is seen as a natural part of party membership, the fundamental goal of any candidate during their campaign is still to accumulate enough widespread support as to win. In terms of securing the vote of the aloof party straggler, centrist-leaning views have held the supreme key to power for the Democratic Party. Looking at the record of Democratic presidents, it becomes clear that these individuals had no realistic chance of winning by playing solely to liberal and progressive bases. The last Democrat to actually do so was Lyndon B. Johnson back in the 1960s. Democrats achieve success by creating a message popular enough to sway independent and swing voters, not just to appease their loyal following.

Today the liberal-moderate rift within the Democratic party has split to unprecedented proportions. Although the share of Democratic voters who describe their views as liberal, and the 15 percent of them describing their views as “very liberal,” was increasing fairly steadily beginning in the 2000s, these “very liberal” voters remain the Democratic minority as compared to percentage of Democratic voters who claim to be moderate and conservative-leaning within the party. None of this is to say that moderate Republicans don’t exist, just that in a party that’s fairly ideologically autonomous, they’re an irregularity. To have any success in the GOP, fortune-wise especially, you support and rise with the party or you fail. In the last few years, most would-be moderate Republicans have either chosen to wholeheartedly support Trump or outright leave. But this isn’t just a modern trend. Moderates have been abandoning their Republican counterparts for a while now, not only as elected Republican officials have become more extreme but their increasingly influential media, donors and general activists have too. Fundamentally, the face of the Republican Party is one marked by oppositional propaganda driven by unparalleled hatred at its core. Like the hard right-wingers, as the moderate Democrat forwards lukewarm plans of action and grows their following, party voters have either been pushed to the sidelines or out altogether.

To put this ideological rift into greater perspective, in a recent national Gallup poll on party affiliation, 41 percent of respondents claimed they were Independent voters, while 31 percent claimed they were Democrats and the last 26 percent Republicans. Whereas societal norms have always led us to believe, simultaneously, that it’s our American duty to vote, but voting for a third party is a vote wasted, election times prove more than disheartening. We’re unfairly directed to settle on the “lesser evil” of one of two candidates. In the era of Trump, anyone is presented as a better option. The story is we must unite to defeat Trump and that’s all there is to it. End of discussion. The Democratic Party has capitalized on the utter desperation of the American people to simply not vote for Trump. In this way, it is beyond crucial, now more than ever, to understand the difference between Democrats and those coerced into voting Democrat.

In denial of health care system failure deeply exposed by the coronavirus pandemic and after a summer of one of the largest civil rights protests in the nation and world, 2020’s leading presidential candidates chose not only to ignore both sentiments, but disagree with them strongly. They’ve taken their stance against transparent core necessities like universal health care and the end of privatized insurance, as well as even marginally defunding police departments and redistributing funds (back) into community-based programs. Although this may be surprising to hear coming from the players who supposedly champion liberal policies, consistency is key. It’s not only the consistency of the widening moderate-liberal divide, but of the Democratic representatives themselves. The barely center-left brand that makes up the Biden-Harris presidential bid, aids in proving both statements true.

Biden, who despite being accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women, still refuses to take accountability and apologize for his behavior. He’s not the only one, as the Democratic National Convention (DNC) is almost equally complicit as the perpetrator himself. Echoing the sentiment, main accuser Tara Reade has slammed the DNC for gaslighting survivors, and even that they’ve been participating in the abuse to the extent of enabling alleged perpetrators like Biden. While the DNC acts as great proponents of the #MeToo movement, they can’t seem to practice what they preach. Even so, he’s better known for authoring the controversial 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, a single but central part of his entire “tough-on-crime” political career. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was an escalation of the war on drugs, viewed by many as a direct contributor to high mass incarceration rates of the 1990s through funding state prison construction.

While consistently boasting of his close ties to the Black community, as well as a record career of advancing civil rights, Biden is no stranger to racially questionable statements either. This May, Biden unironically told the Black host of the radio show, “The Breakfast Club,” that “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t Black.” Although he took back the statement later that day, it’s clear the confidence of our Democratic nominee doesn’t come from his own personal grit, righteous social influence or cultural sensitivity. Biden’s self-assurance comes from the fact that he is simply not Trump.

Passing up stronger progressive choices in line with the most fervently widespread political sentiments of the last six decades, Biden chose Kamala Harris as his VP pick. Although it’s absolutely historic that a woman of color was nominated, Harris is by no means a friend to either group nor a proponent of the intersectional future most progressives envision. A self-proclaimed moderate, Harris’ political and legal experience concerns her past career as California District Attorney and Attorney General. Quite literally, her career is built off incarcerating poor brown and black folks on minimal charges for maximum sentences. More specifically, she spent years going after and jailing truant parents, despite the fact that truancy occurs disproportionately among children living in poverty, who feel unsafe at school, who work to support their families, or who have mental and/or physical health issues. Additionally, Harris spent years ignoring the Supreme Court’s ruling of Brown v. Plata, which stated California’s debilitating overcrowded prisons violated inmates’ Eighth Amendment rights. Whereas the solution was to simply identify and release prisoners already due to be released, she found no willpower to comply. Essentially, Harris has no idea of what the criminal justice system truly means for poor Americans, and further believes there’s somehow a place for incarceration in a proper education policy.

Obviously the lack of officials seeking tangible reform in many of America’s degraded spheres, so gut-wrenchingly highlighted over the past few months, is bound to draw in criticism. Still, in the case of the modern Democratic party in particular, it’s received almost as disrespectful to question our ballot choices. Despite many of its forefront representatives ignoring the literal millions of policies Americans are demanding, we should feel grateful that at least one of the two candidates isn’t a fascist. But criticism of Biden and Harris is not a vote for Trump. It’s simply criticism of these candidates. The brutal antagonism within and between our two parties, or the multiple parties masquerading as two, makes honest conversations about those vying to represent us much more challenging than necessary. Under the unyielding mass impression that you’re either “with us or against us,” the two-party system will continue to hold the people and our hope for the future hostage.

Miranda Jackson-Nudelman is a senior majoring in political science.

Many have likely seen the circulating pictures and stories of empty city streets, smog-free skies and wildlife returning to their preindustrial origins all around the world. While some of these stories have their merits, their existence may still create a discussion space spawning hazardous theories. The general area that scientists are noticing the most significant difference is in air quality. It’s true that China, a country that normally places high on the global emissions scale, has emitted 35 percent less carbon since quarantine measures have taken effect as compared to the same period in the previous year. Such a dramatic decline in polluting emissions was an almost unintentional consequence of China’s strict nationwide quarantine regulations. Differing from America’s response, China’s uncompromising “zero contact” policy was enforced through door-to-door health checks by authorities, forced isolation of any sick suspects in makeshift hospitals and quarantine shelters, drones policing those wearing inappropriate protection outside and security guards posted at larger building complexes to monitor the temperature of residents. Although China’s radical response was successful in dramatically “flattening the curve” of coronavirus infections, a focus on the ecological effect of their measures takes the narrow issue out of the greater current context.

Italy’s industrialized areas have similarly seen a strong decrease in air pollution coming from the reduction of traffic and activity, though their newly vacant waterways have received the most attention. As many pictures plastering social media feeds can seemingly verify, the iconic Venetian canals have become eerily clear, with everything from swans to dolphins appearing to return to its waters. However, many of these stories are misleading for a variety of reasons. For one, some of this news is outright fake and is actually taking place in other regions than originally claimed, while others are simply framed to make natural occurrences, like wildlife encounters, seem out of the ordinary for certain areas. This is particularly the case for the stories concerning Italy, as the Venice metropolitan area has long been frequented by swans, and the “Venetian” dolphins were actually filmed in a port in Sardinia, hundreds of miles away from the claimed sighting.

Various researchers have begun to argue against the proposed connection between coronavirus and our ecological salvation. Scientists insist that many positive environmental effects are most likely temporary. To their understanding, the coronavirus hasn’t realistically created both decreased and long-term impacts on the environment. Underscored by simply not knowing, the environment’s fate rests on the human response to the virus, such as the political, economic and societal decisions to follow this period. As several distinct governments all intend to return to “business as usual” the first chance available, positive environmental effects may not only be confined to the short term, but may also be entirely reversed. Still, regardless of whether these effects may only be temporary, the positivist perspective aids in obscuring all of the ecological destruction happening due to the coronavirus, simultaneously to its apparent rejuvenation. For example, cities internationally are currently drowning in their own waste from used medical supplies like face masks and gloves to consumer necessities born from changed times, like plastic bags and single-use cups. The comprehensive societal turn away from reusable and recyclable products may be valuable for slowing and preventing the spread of the virus, but inarguably does absolutely no favors for our environment.

The most important impact of imagining COVID-19 as the environment’s saving grace is that it creates a false silver lining within our deeply devastating present. Such ideas produce a narrative in which humans are at fault, as observed in stories that aid in legitimizing the idea that “humans are the virus,” and “coronavirus is the vaccine.” Emboldening an extremist environmentalist position, this dangerous narrative conflates a total lack of human activity, and humanity generally, to the preservation and restoration of the Earth. The dark ideology of ecofascism not only separates the Earth from its human inhabitants, but prioritizes it above human lives. To them, any reduction in pollution deserves to be celebrated, regardless of its reasoning. No cost is too great to cure the viruslike infection that is humanity. Global pandemics are narrowly posed as a type of divine intervention that inherently make the world a better place. All the lives lost are simply a means to further an end as a justified sacrifice for the sake of the planet. Ecofascist rhetoric conveniently overlooks the disproportionate impact different groups in society have on the environment and reciprocally the way their environments affect them, thus consequently fueling a solution like pandemic-fueled population control. While disguising the depressing reality that the Earth’s true ruin lies in capitalist and militaristic motives, the disproportionate effects of environmental hazards on the most impoverished and marginalized communities remain hidden.

The fact that these institutionally underprivileged communities are most often the home to a majority of people of color ignores a rich international history of imperialism and industrialism, the factor traditionally creating and since perpetuating impoverishment in these communities. While replicated on microscales within national and state borders, such exploitation is evident through the past and perpetual profiteering of smaller, non-Western nations by dominant global powers. The disproportionate means and environmental resources needed to face epidemic shocks like COVID-19 obviously have left certain groups more vulnerable than the others, but intentionally so. The Eurocentric roots of ecofascism flow along the same vein as eugenic thought, mutating into an ideology in which fascism is essentially harnessed as a genocidal tool justified in the fight for environmental restoration. In the current case of COVID-19 and the United States, the health disparities and preexisting conditions which primarily afflict minority populations have led to immensely disproportionate rates of infection and deaths from virus complications. In Chicago, black citizens have accounted for 72 percent of coronavirus-related deaths, although they contribute less than a third of the city’s total population. In New York City, black populations are dying at a rate almost double to that of white people, while Latinx citizens are similarly dying at a rate that is more than double. The reasoning for this excessive imbalance in coronavirus victims is far from natural, as it is the result of traditionally systematic factors following a fatal doctrine. Above all else, the belief champions that those who must die have done so for the greater good, regardless of whether they might overwhelmingly be people of color.

This period of continuously and blatantly exposed societal shortcomings must be utilized as an incentive for widespread institutional reforms for those shortcomings to be truly corrected. As environmentalists-turned-fascists are seduced by a radical position at odds with humanity’s suffering, it’s essential to dismantle these alienating belief systems permeating our global discourse and serving as the greatest barrier to our collective recovery.

Miranda Jackson-Nudelman is a junior majoring in political science.

This association is now complicated through both the rise and proliferation of technology companies and the government’s expanded reliance on their technology in an attempt to expedite and update their antique procedures. The drive for capitalistic acquisition inherent to the political realm has taken a newfound supremacy, endangering the fairness and efficiency of our already delicate democratic system.

Considering the unprecedented rise in 21st-century technological capabilities, it’s unsurprising that our government seeks to modernize its outdated systems. Yet, outdated doesn’t inherently mean unreliable, as experimentation with voting technology has proven. The accuracy of new mechanisms aimed at facilitating political processes are rightfully under scrutiny. Earlier this month, the Iowa caucuses debacle particularly illuminated the challenges underlying such a new dependency. As a side note, caucuses are a peculiar part of our intrinsically complex political system, differing from primaries to the extent they’re often focused particularly on local populations openly voicing their nomination choice. Furthermore, they’re organized by specific political parties instead of arranged solely through the state.

In the case of Iowa, the situation’s principal disorder came from its Democratic Party’s use of an insufficiently tested smartphone app to tabulate results. Commissioning for-profit technology company Shadow Inc. to create the app less than two months before the caucuses, its speedy development left little time for thorough testing. Albeit, party officials reported no suspicions regarding app malfunctions, introducing new technology to traditional voting procedures without acknowledging all problems that could possibly arise. As a result, there were many factors present complicating the process, including a general unfamiliarity with the system, the high error rate in transmitting results to caucus chairs and the inability for many to properly log in and use the app at all — consequently preventing them from voting properly. The final results of the debacle unsurprisingly proved to be just as unsatisfactory as the process itself. Although Bernie Sanders won the popular vote, Pete Buttigieg amassed a higher percentage of state delegates based on a flawed caucus system made worse by unnecessary technology.

Although the chaos apparent in the Iowa caucuses undoubtedly tied back to the Democrat’s reliance on experimental technology, the choice of Shadow Inc. in particular wasn’t some random fluke. In November and December, the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) paid a total of $63,183 to Shadow Inc. for “website development,” according to the campaign’s financial disclosure report. Specific candidates too had prior connections to the for-profit business, as Buttigieg’s campaign had donated tens of thousands of dollars last year to Shadow Inc. for “software rights and subscriptions,” according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records. A spokesperson for the campaign later said the nature of the transaction was for the company to aid in the campaign’s voter contact through improved text messaging services. Besides Buttigieg and the IDP, FEC filings also showed that the Nevada State Democratic Party (NSDP) paid Shadow Inc. $58,000 for “technology services” in August.

Nevada’s contributions to Shadow Inc. is important because the next Democratic caucus will occur there on Feb. 22. Subsequent to the incident in Iowa, the NSDP had originally intended to use Shadow Inc.’s same app but have naturally reconsidered, despite past financial ties. Not only will the app not be used in Nevada, but it won’t be used anywhere in the United States during preliminary elections, according to Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez. Instead of following the lead of New Hampshire, which prohibited all technology use during its general primary election held on Feb. 11, Nevada plans on using a different technological means to collect voting results. Characterized as a caucus “tool” to be preloaded onto caucus chair iPads, the party emphasized the difference between its new hardware and other app use, although without explicitly delineating that difference.

Technology holds great promise for facilitating political processes, with the possibility of expediting ancient voting procedures, and even increasing mainstream voter participation by making the entire process more accessible and comprehensible. However, such experimentation with modern technology needs to be just that — researched and tested beforehand, not thrown together weeks before critical elections and forced onto the public as reliable. Apps, or “tools,” aimed at revitalizing traditional means of voting routines must not only go through trial prior to public use, but also be continually regulated. Technological management is fundamental to avoid repeating Iowa’s shortcomings and to evade the possibility of utilizing products by private businesses which offer haphazard services.

In essence, the proliferation of technology has substantially altered traditional political procedures. By introducing new paths for profit-driven third-party groups to affect longstanding democratic processes, for-profit interests further infiltrate political advocacy. Politics will never be completely distanced from superficial desires of external businesses, or individual politicians, but today’s increased acceptance of technology in elections are sure to thwart our theoretically democratic system, simply reinforcing the problems already inherent within it instead of supplying a viable solution.

Miranda Jackson-Nudelman is a junior majoring in political science.

The inclusivity of transgender or gender noncomformist groups is often seen as a danger to cisgender rights, to their personal safety and simply to the entire fabric of our society. For example, consider that the superficial moral “panic” caused by these groups using the bathrooms of their choice, based on their true identity, has gone as far as to produce violent reactions from those sharing the same space. In an attempt to justify such cruelty, the “trans panic defense,” or the more general “LGBTQ+ panic defense,” is a legal strategy invoked by perpetrators where the blame for an assault is placed on the victim’s sexual or gender orientation. Underlying these brutal motives against trans women in particular is the notion that within the bathroom battleground, they’re merely men seeking to mask as, and subsequently prey on, “real” women.

By “othering” those who identify as anything beyond cisgender, we place these individuals in a box seemingly out of reach of universal validation and support. The inherently detrimental “us versus them” dichotomy, which demands artificial and binary constructions of difference in the misguided name of self-preservation, continues to severely plague much of humanity. An all-embracing tolerance is the mark of an advancing world, reinforced by equitable treatment and the validation of others’ harmlessly honest existence. Yet, the rising backlash against trans and non-binary individuals is both never-ending and outrageously inhumane.

Controversy over the removal of the Venus symbol from sanitary pads made by the menstrual product company Always, for example, constitutes the kind of misguided aversion that assumes expanded inclusivity is a liberal attack on longstanding cultural traditions. The move was enforced by the parent company Procter & Gamble, stating their commitment to diversity along with a leading regard for their customers’ mental health and the possible damage caused by the symbol’s innately female-coded imagery. Although mental health is a topic commonly referenced when considering gender issues, it’s not usually to support the well-being of the ostracized, but for cisgender people completely removed from the effects of increased inclusivity.

The most prominent arguments concerning these mentally altering consequences is related to that of children. The so-called justification is often along the lines of “children are too young to be exposed to sex” and “kids can’t comprehend such complex matters!” This misguided notion obscures the fact that firstly, children aren’t inherently asexual beings. Exposure to the realities of the sexual spectrum will aid them in the personal construction of their identities, as well as increase the general acceptance of individuals different from themselves. This is especially important in the case of children identifying beyond the binaries of what’s predominately accepted in society. For the sanctity of a united and healthier future, these children deserve to grow up surrounded by confirmation rather than ridicule, principally by the figures meant to support them as they face a typically unforgiving world.

The greatest challenge to standardized inclusivity for trans and gender nonconforming individuals is the notion of their inherent “dangerousness.” Such a position is greatly influenced by the lack of these individuals’ representation in the media, as their continuous invisibility lessens the legitimacy of their existence. Additionally, the production of negative representation only functions to further dehumanize and alienate these groups, which obviously produces incredibly detrimental effects on their mental well-being. Such publicly negative depictions of trans individuals relates to their characters’ typical construction as significantly one-dimensional.

The most frequent profession for these characters in media is that of sex workers, while they’re further restricted to the production’s role as a killer, villain or the victim of gross brutalities based solely on their identity. The thin line between confusion and condemnation is routinely exemplified by various individuals in influential positions, from politicians to popular public figures. They ceaselessly perpetuate the stereotype that this whole “sexuality issue” is too modern to fully comprehend and requires time to accept. In an interview this past November, Hillary Clinton forwarded the position that trans affairs pose a “legitimate concern” for cisgender women, and the advancement of their rights necessitates a “very big generational discussion.” Besides advancing the deeply problematic notion that trans identities are a new concept, although their existence has been internationally affirmed for centuries, her words fuel and validate bigotry. This reckless rhetoric is not only appallingly far behind the times, but legitimizes the efforts of those seeking to shroud and erase the factual reality of sexuality’s biological universality.

Man-made divides constructed between different identities are used to produce more inequalities between groups and perpetuate hierarchies of domination. These fabricated ideological power structures forcefully infiltrate every facet of our social, political and economic spheres. The imagined binaries separating “normalcy” from “abnormality” make some groups seem more deserving of a respected and elevated societal status, fundamental rights and the protection of the most sacred human liberties. How could individuals who choose to live every day as the most authentic version of themselves deserve to be denied the bare minimum of human decency and acknowledgment, as they’re mocked and told their reality is a lie? Although it’s obvious the world is quick to disregard the existence of those who seem to fall outside the scope of mainstream sexual conventionality, our incessant alienation of other human beings is a cruelty without a shred of justification.

Miranda Jackson-Nudelman is a junior majoring in political science.

Whereas the police can straightforwardly change their wardrobe, it’s not as simple a solution for people of color. Unlike the most frequent casualties of their brutality, police officers can not only effortlessly disguise themselves, but they consciously choose their occupational paths. The fictitious foundation of the Blue Lives Matter movement equates an occupation to a racial identity. This unfairly results in privileging the civil rights of the authoritative role of the police over those intrinsic to humankind. Besides undermining the plea for equality before the law and society that the Black Lives Matter movement champions, the Blue Lives Matter countermovement has fractured America under reductionist falsehoods. They perpetuate the dangerous conception that the Black Lives Matter movement is an anti-police group, and that there’s an inherent trade-off between improved community-police relations, the sanctity of civil rights and protection of law enforcement.

America has a long history of police brutality. With fatality rates increasing fairly steadily since the 2000s, the number of deaths of African Americans at the hands of police have reached historic highs. Spawned during the first year of the Trump administration, police use-of-force has now become the sixth-leading cause of death for young black men. Despite the media frenzy surrounding the recent conviction of former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger for the murder of Botham Jean in his own apartment, the case stands as an exception to the norm regarding police brutality convictions. Although each year police kill anywhere from 900 to 1,000 people, since 2005, only 35 officers have been held accountable through convictions. Such inequalities embedded in our criminal justice system enforce the systematic assault on the lives of people of color specifically, becoming leading factors in the formulation of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Rising in response to the Black Lives Matter movement around 2014, the “Blue Lives” revolution has since deeply penetrated America’s psyche. Founded on a self-proclaimed need for the united position of law enforcement against Black Lives Matters’ goals, there stands a disconnect between the civil rights group’s purpose and the hollow nature of officers’ intentions. On top of the pitiful mechanisms withholding officers’ accountability, the police are already one of the most protected groups in our society. With ample privileges following court rulings in the institution’s favor, their protection is further prioritized over the everyday man through state and congressional legislation.

Following the lead of independent state bills increasing the penalties against those who harm officers, the Protect and Serve Act of 2018 overwhelmingly passed with bipartisan support in Congress to comprehensively make offenses against law enforcement a federal crime. Placing the defense of police within a hate crime framework, it equates a voluntarily chosen career path with the immutable traits of human existence. The “Blue Lives” countermovement’s powerful influence on the country’s first, greatly tone-deaf bill constitutes the undeniable privileging of the institution’s cries to action. Shifting the mainstream’s focus to hostilities against the police instead of those perpetrated by the police, the movement has reduced Black Lives Matters’ fight for civil rights as an all-out war against the police that jeopardizes officers’ lives. This incorrect interpretation discredits efforts for racial justice and produces disproportional legal protections, further fabricating a dichotomous narrative in which the protection of black lives and police officers’ can never coexist.

The consequences of police efforts to protect themselves, justified in their eyes as a time where police work is so very life-threatening, are multidimensional. These effects became noticeable during the Charlottesville protests, where the Blue Lives Matter flag waved alongside the Confederate classic amid a sea of white supremacists. Although the conflation of a symbol posed as police pride with that of white nationalism was quickly condemned by the proponents of Blue Lives Matter, it’s difficult to support a position of unforeseen ignorance. With an atmosphere already polluted with racial tensions, the events at Charlottesville followed months after publicized support of “Blue Lives” from President Donald Trump. Such a favorable stance from the leader of the free world sanctioned the conception of two sides in opposition, while bolstering the group’s national representation.

The conception of a national “Blue Lives” identity is aided by the countermovement’s emblem: a reinterpretation of the Thin Blue Line flag. The new image has a simple blue line against a blackening of the most patriotic American symbol of all: the American flag. Against the backdrop of the American flag, any condemnation of the police is not only one against their actions or the general institution, but of a sacred American bastion. Criticisms of the police, however pushed by the Black Lives Matter movement and its supporters, then becomes viewed as ostensibly un-American.

The Blue Lives Matter movement principally manufactured the haphazard “us versus them” narrative, which has triggered an imbalanced protection of an occupation over the fundamental rights of minorities. The “Blue Lives” in our country operate with such supremacy that it enables dangerous ideologies and soundly guarantees to reproduce further fatalities and turmoil.

Miranda Jackson-Nudelman is a junior majoring in political science.

Going to college is often posed as a necessity if we students mean to do anything worthwhile with our lives, and is supposedly the rightful passage to a financially secure future. Although working throughout college is a widely accepted and traditionalist norm, its admirability undermines the dedication it requires. Juggling academia, work and social relationships, students don’t have the time to be working 40-hour weeks during the semester without it effectually interfering with their studies or exhausting them.

Additionally, the idea is simply more applicable to a previous generation. In the past, it hasn’t been unusual to hear of parents saving money toward their children’s college funds, yet more recently, rising tuition costs have caused parents to be less inclined to do so. Parents have a more realistic perspective regarding the current tuition costs plaguing our generation, which are far from the amounts they paid for their college ventures. In 1982, students paid an average tuition of roughly $1,140 a year to attend a public, four-year institution. With room and board, that number could reach around $3,400. Almost 40 years later, the average tuition for that same education has reached over $10,000, and including room and board, the total fees can extend past $26,000.

These prices reflect a more than 200-percent increase in the average price of tuition, while dually obscuring the fact that tuition is just one aspect of the financial burden imposed by colleges. The cumulative cost of books, general transportation, miscellaneous living expenses, groceries or ready-made meal plans, along with required health insurance and petty costs hidden within our bills are all further exacerbated by on-campus residence. It’s no wonder why our generation faces record amounts of student debt, as student loans currently make up the largest category of non-housing debt in America. Unfortunately, this is only part of the problem that society and the higher educational system have rigged against us. We’re past the age where working part-time throughout college is sufficient enough to cover all the fees attached to the experience, let alone live comfortably. As a college education becomes more crucial for economic opportunity than ever before, despite its rising costs to attend, the institutional system requires a restructuring in its entirety to make it not only more accessible to all, but more realistic.

To put it plainly, the minimum wage is simply not enough to survive on, especially for college students, who are often in desperate need of unabridged financial dependability and faced with a continuously building number of bills. If you choose not to live in available housing on the college campus itself, finding local housing becomes your best option. Paying rent on a minimum wage salary is no easy feat, as the affordable housing crisis has reached a critical level. Today, minimum wage will be unable to cover the rent of a one-bedroom apartment almost anywhere in America, and nowhere in the country can it cover the rent of a two-bedroom. Merely increasing the modern minimum wage isn’t a straightforward fix because it increases the competition between individuals vying for the same employment opportunities. This is especially difficult as the competition for the limited number of minimum wage jobs can be rampant within college towns, and even more so on campuses themselves.

Federal Work-Study (FWS) programs provide part-time employment opportunities for students, although they do not lower the actual price students pay toward school. However, FWS programs are comprehensively underfunded and have yet to keep up with changing times and newfound economic necessities of students. Besides their inadequacy to cover the costs of college tuition in 2019, the whole system of federal monetary allocation prioritizes long-established private schools. As a result, public four-year institutions and community colleges that actually cater to those from low-income backgrounds get less funding per student than private universities. A high-income student at a private four-year college becomes more likely to qualify for work-study than those already struggling financially, effectively missing the mark in providing employment opportunities to those needing it most. As dismal as these potential occupations and earning possibilities currently stand, they may soon become even worse, as their funding is being threatened under President Donald Trump’s proposed education budget. Further damaging an already flawed system, it would cut work-study funding in half and end crucial loan forgiveness initiatives.

Faced with off-campus renting hardships, towering tuition fees and insufficient minimum wages, universities and the government must understand the current financial burdens on students and do more. A congressional fix rewriting the rules on how universities receive funding could challenge the contemporary status quo and increase the likelihood of low-income students receiving FWS. Moreover, the Higher Education Act, a comprehensive bill regulating just about everything related to the college experience and its exhaustive expenses, has yet to be updated since 2008. It’s clear the plethora of financial acquisition problems plaguing college students can’t be confronted by merely balancing employment and school. The whole institutional framework has to be refashioned at its core to make college a reasonable investment without incredible indebtedness. At the very least, we must all recognize how impractical the traditionalist normalcy of “putting yourself through school” has become.

Miranda Jackson-Nudelman is a junior majoring in political science.

These numbers are increasing as we speak.

In particular, there have been 263 mass shootings, which are categorized as any occurrence in which at least four people are shot. An amount outpacing the number of days thus far this year, we’re on track for an average of more than one mass shooting a day.

The two most recent mass shootings have garnered massive media attention, including those in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio. In Texas, after writing a racist manifesto condemning the increasingly Hispanic population and their U.S. “invasion,” Patrick Crusius walked into a Walmart and opened fire. An action consequently taking the lives of 22 individuals and injuring more than 24 others, it’s been the deadliest shooting this year.

Within fewer than 24 hours of the massacre at El Paso, Connor Betts opened fire on a crowd in Dayton, killing nine and wounding 27. Police have stated they knew of no motivations behind the attack; however, six of the victims were black and another was the shooter’s own transgender brother — although Betts was unaware of his brother’s identity, according to his friends and investigative sources. While the circumstances of every mass shooting might be unique, these recent shootings further expose an increasingly blatant pattern. Predominantly white, young men with the ability to obtain guns are opening fire on the innocent populace in the name of their perceived grievances, or for factors really only clear to themselves. More than a simply stated gun violence problem, specifically, America has a problem with white men’s gun violence.

Like any other brutal displays of danger to universal safety and to humanity, the public response to these events has been tremendous. The phrase “do something” has been a desperate call to public officials in the hopes of increasing background checks, gun licensing and assault weapon bans.

However, the response to gun violence has been unsurprisingly divided in regards to both its remedy and its cause. Besides the ever-apparent split between gun rights and gun control advocates, there also exists a disconnect surrounding what could be coercing these young men to take such extreme measures.

Following the shootings at El Paso and Dayton, President Trump used a public address along with social media to point the blame at both mental illness and “gruesome” video games. By saying mental illness is what actually pulls the trigger, this sentiment treats all mental illnesses like a volatile ticking time bomb poised to harm the masses. Arthur Evans, CEO of the American Psychological Association, was one of the first to put the groundless dysphoria aimed at mental illness to rest, stating its blame for gun violence is not only inaccurate but goes against basic scientific evidence. Stressing that an overwhelming majority of those with mental illnesses are nonviolent, many fail to grasp the concept that much of mental illness is aimed more so at self-destruction rather than at others. The fact that a designated ‘’loner” would go out and murder multiple guiltless people clearly shows the state of an unhealthy mind, but not necessarily one plagued by an existing mental illness.

Additionally, the link between prior mass shooters and their histories of mental illness is fairly nonexistent, similar to the link between shooting civilians and playing violent video games. The amount of gun violence in other countries within Europe and Asia with similar and higher rates of video game use, even playing the same exact games as Americans, don’t compare to America’s gun violence rates in the slightest. Although there’s a clear divide within the discussion of gun violence causes, a psychological and statistical understanding of possible contributing factors provides much greater insight than playing a superficial blame game.

The real source of the problem is rooted in American culture and history, overflowing with the defense of armaments, white supremacy and violence as a means to solve conflicts. Today, social media networks are vehicles to connect and radicalize like-minded individuals, grieving about their “newfound” place in the world, their loss of power, control and rights. They are exposed to subtle racist, homophobic and sexist ideas through memes, tweets or statuses, and when repeating and sharing them, they’re largely called out and shamed by those they are attacking through these “jokes.” Embarrassment and humiliation are powerful tools for shaping an individual’s beliefs, even more so for men suffering from toxic masculinity, a mutant form of masculinity influenced by “traditional” masculine stereotypes and societal norms that are greatly harmful to all. Young men seek to find blame for their circumstances, consequently narrowly targeting their anger at marginalized groups.

Fueling often undetectable communities of white, nationalistic and alt-right social media amplifies and provides support for shared sentiments of general unhappiness and greater anger. Determined to do anything in their capacity to remedy such feelings and standing in the world, the ease of obtaining a gun in this country aids the white gunmen’s plight along with support from a hateful online community. Online anger amounting to its most extreme produces violence in its most brutal form, especially in the name of a cause, even one as revolting as uniform white dominance and the obliteration of anyone who disagrees.

Miranda Jackson-Nudelman is a junior majoring in political science.

Recently, the revival of vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States has mounted to proportions that haven’t been seen in more than a decade. Specifically, cases of measles, the mumps and the whooping cough are on the rise. In April, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 695 cases of measles outbreaks from 22 states, the highest number reported since its 2000 eradication in the United States. The outbreaks throughout New York state are among the largest and longest-lasting reported since the measles elimination. Generally, the introduction of diseases in communities with a highly vaccinated population pose little threat. Yet, when a disease is introduced in areas where few people possess vaccinations, the action constitutes an enormous effect on the whole community. The decision to refuse vaccination or not vaccinate enough decreases both an individual’s immunity to preventable diseases and weakens herd immunity in their communities, threatening the lives of those around them.

The recent rise in outbreaks is tied to an overall decline in vaccination rates. While immunizations are widely regarded as safe and effective ways to promote health and prevent the spread of diseases, the consensus is not unanimous. The polarization concerning vaccination beliefs has become strongly influenced by a growing anti-vaccination movement. Although not a new ideological campaign, its magnitude in present day positions it as a global and convoluted beast. Similar to many other societal movements in the 21st century, the anti-vaccination crusade pulls much of its power from social media. Numerous and diverse social media platforms allow anti-vaxxers to prolifically spread and amplify their rhetoric directly into mainstream focus.

Fueled by safety concerns, political and religious beliefs and a substantial amount of misinformation, anti-vaxxers cite a wide range of reasons motivating their decisions not to vaccinate themselves or their children. Arguably the most popular of these is the belief in the connection between vaccination and autism. Despite having been disproved countless times, the argument that the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine causes autism is alive and well. Among the incomprehensible amount of outspoken celebrity anti-vaxxers are actors Jenny McCarthy and Robert DeNiro, who are both parents of autistic children. They perpetuate misconceptions by broadcasting their beliefs that vaccinations contributed to their childrens’ disorders. U.S. President Donald Trump has also turned to Twitter on numerous occasions throughout the years to express his belief in this false correlation. This kind of fearmongering of misinformation aided by social media only results in furthering negative stereotypes associated with autism spectrum disorders.

As support for the connection between autism and vaccinations retains its societal foothold despite evidence otherwise, it’s clear that the deeper reasoning behind such a stance is simply inscrutable autism phobia. Condemning immunization due to the belief that it’ll completely alter someone’s DNA such that it results in autism is a baffling enough thought on its own. Yet underlining their vaccine condemnation is the condemnation of autism itself. It paints autism as some devastating curse to individuals and society, as the most serious trauma a parent could ever endure. On top of all the stereotypes already associated with autism, now people with autism must also bear the categorization of “vaccine-injured.” All of the resources that went toward investigating whether or not vaccines cause autism took away from the otherwise important direction of research figuring out ways to improve the lives of autistic people and their families. This dehumanizing discourse stands as an obstacle to a powerful embracement of neurodiversity, as well as human diversity in general. It takes the rightful position of autistic people from center stage of the conversation and places them on the back burner in a marginalized position. It further reveals the backward viewpoint that the actuality of a person with autism is worse than a potentially fatal, yet completely preventable, pandemic.

Miranda Jackson-Nudelman is a sophomore majoring in political science.

While most arrests for possession are for petty and small amounts, past convictions perpetually hold individuals back in society, becoming hurdles to finding housing, jobs or gaining child custody. This factor has yet to proportionately target all users, however, as arrests associated with possession charges target some groups of people more than others. Unsurprisingly, minorities have been dealt the losing hand. Significant racial bias in arrests and criminal proceedings remains prevalent and widespread throughout the United States, and possession charges follow suit. Black people specifically are found to be three times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession compared to their white counterparts, despite research finding roughly equal usage rates between the groups.

With the legislation in place enforcing the legality of marijuana, the petty possession charges that hold disproportionately over certain groups stand the chance of diminishing. Clearing past records for marijuana convictions only further fights back against an overextending enforcement of the law inextricably tied with race discrimination. Record-clearing benefits those who have unjustly suffered the most under the war on weed, and the greater racist war on drugs. It gives them the newfound possibility to stand on equal legal footing with those who possess the blessed ability to generally evade the harsher side of the law’s wrath. Expunging criminal records removes the ambiguity associated with drug charges, wiping the slate clean for people of color and giving them a fresh start.

As the predominately white legal marijuana industry rakes in billions of dollars of sales through this turned tide in public sentiments, it seems shameful that people of color should remain subjected to jailing and a lifetime of patronization from their criminal records by policies others profit off of or simply remain unaffected by. While magazine covers and advertisements flaunt and praise white marijuana use with its legalization, they fail to truthfully represent the people of color who are judged differently for their weed use. The ability to push back against the racism that got weed criminalized in the first place means remedying those who have suffered disproportionately under racial ideology. As legalization has positioned itself as a move for social justice, its extension shouldn’t be severed before its full capabilities can be reached. Providing the opportunity to expunge not only debilitating criminal records, but also the socially misconstrued ideology and negative connotations weed is associated with, is less of a matter of equality and more a stride toward greater equality and justice.

Miranda Jackson-Nudelman is a sophomore majoring in political science.

Throughout the past decade of technical innovation within the smoking industry, vaping and e-cigarette use has been steadily gaining traction. Though electronic cigarettes technically pose a competitive threat to traditional tobacco products, Big Tobacco quickly capitalized on growing interest rather than dismissing it as a passing fad. They began producing their own vaping products as well as buying existing electronic smoking-related companies under their control to add to their expansive repertoire. Thus, the emergence of traditional alternatives as its own product class primarily comes from the aid of Big Tobacco’s intervention in the process early on.

Much like targeted tobacco marketing of the past, current marketing of electronic tobacco products involves the promotion of a wide range of appealing flavors on various multimedia platforms, effectively grabbing the attention of younger audiences. Constant exposure to these products, both due to their ample accessibility and flavorful desirability, have captured an audience that’s never been receptive to the traditional tobacco market before because of cigarettes’ cultural image and poor qualities like taste and smell. Those who have never before been involved with a single tobacco or nicotine product have become swept up in a new wave of tantalizing tobacco normalcy, reaping the almost inescapable consequence of some form of nicotine reliance or addiction. Today, electronic tobacco products have become the most well-received tobacco products among youth.

The response to a young generation’s captivation with the electronic tobacco industry has reasonably been a widespread fear of a nationwide youth nicotine addiction. This logical threat has ignited the fuse, sparking an adamant demand from state legislation and federal agencies for further regulation specifically targeting electronic tobacco products. In 2016, the FDA extended its regulatory authority to all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, cigars, hookah and pipe tobacco. More recently, it has proposed new steps designed to protect younger individuals by limiting access to flavored tobacco products as well as banning menthol in cigarettes. Conversely, state regulations on tobacco alternatives vary in extremity across states, yet no state is without some form of legislation entirely.

Big Tobacco’s expert utilization of targeted marketing and the complete monopolization of a specific industry have resulted in a coordinated control of copious quantities of the population by a number of companies one could count on a single hand. However, unlike other industries that might be restricted when subjugated to government regulations, the tobacco market and the select few who guide its invisible hand of market power can rest assured that their statuses and wallets are safe from any damage possibly caused by regulatory efforts.

The creation of mandated restrictions on electronic tobacco products doesn’t merely undo thousands of budding or unquenchable nicotine addictions, to which traditional tobacco products provide a remedy. Besides the irony of legislation aimed at a group plagued with many individuals past the point of no return, the monopolization of the industry ensures Big Tobacco’s protection regardless of government prohibition targets. These regulations do hurt the general distribution of electronic products, but also eliminate the competition the electronic tobacco industry has always posed against traditional products. Thus, the regulation of electronic tobacco products doesn’t hurt Big Tobacco’s stocks, as the incentive to buy traditional products increases instead. They provide a safety net for a newer and younger group’s nicotine needs while further propagating the wealth within the concentrated tobacco industry and cycle of societal nicotine addiction. Regardless of regulations’ specific target within the market, the moralistic demonization of the products and the widely acknowledged health effects, it’s always a win for Big Tobacco.

Miranda Jackson-Nudelman is a sophomore majoring in political science.

It is important to keep in mind that this seemingly abnormal profession is not always voluntary. Some sex workers face few alternatives to monetarily sustain themselves and, in extreme cases, start because of extremely pressuring or forced circumstances. However, this distinction between elective and forced prostitution does more harm than good to all involved, because the dichotomization of sex workers becomes a tool to justify denying sex workers their rights. Current international legislation fueled by anti-trafficking campaigns has focused specifically on the protection of women forced into prostitution, making all sex work seem like a type of abuse. In 2018, two bills that became known as the FOSTA-SESTA package were solidified into law. FOSTA, “Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act,” and SESTA, “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act,” seek to fight sex trafficking by regulating online platforms and restricting online advertising of commercial sex services. In its wake, lawful online speech is mercilessly policed, and consensual sex workers face discrimination more than actual sex workers face punishment.

Though some global organizations do preach sex work legitimacy while supporting the right of individuals to self-determine, one of the most famous being the Global Network of Sex Work Projects, there is still much more of a widespread emphasis on stopping forced female prostitution over protecting sex workers’ rights. Not only does this put sex workers’ well-being and safety at risk, it also downplays all other gender and sexual identities in the industry. As many international sex workers’ organizations specifically use “women” in their names, it’s clear that women hold the utmost attention in the world’s eye regarding sex work.

While it’s unquestionably important to target sex trafficking and all the horrors it entails, this particular mode of targeting casts false and potentially harmful divisions within the sex worker community. Voluntary prostitution becomes associated with guilt while involuntary prostitution is associated with innocence. The guilty are then judged as deserving of whatever mistreatment they may face — after all, they only have themselves to blame for getting themselves into their situation. However, in thinking of sex work only in terms of choice and freedom, the establishment of the victim’s innocence is prioritized. Situations arising from abuse to sex workers’ liberties automatically seem synonymous with forced prostitution rather than with a violation of human rights. Are only those forced into prostitution worthy of protection?

This dichotomous dogma must not allow sex workers to be divided into “whores” and “Madonnas” — those who are guilty and undeserving of defense pitted against those who are innocent and thus deserving. Even if the greater population chooses to remain blind to an individual’s right to control their life to their liking, those with the authority to create legislation and influence others to protect and extend sex workers’ rights cannot remain apathetic. The current positioning of sex work, as well as the societal focus on women in prostitution, ignores the variety of persons who become involved and only further promotes stereotypes of an industry already riddled with falsities and negative connotations. Inclusivity and heightened awareness must first replace this restrictive model for a true reformation of the sex industry. Simply put, it is imperative to remember that sex workers’ rights are human rights.

Miranda Jackson-Nudelman is a sophomore majoring in political science.