The independent student newspaper of Goucher College

Category archive

Opinion

#ThisIsMyEducation

by
Photo credit: http://affectautism.com/

Imagine the following scenario taking place in a middle school classroom. An 8th grade history teacher asks her class, “What were some of Abraham Lincoln’s beliefs?” One student raises their hand and says, “Lincoln believed that slavery was morally wrong.” The teacher provides the student a piece of candy as a reward. Another student raises their hand and notes, “Piggybacking off of that, Lincoln believed in a strong, united nation.” This student also receives a piece of candy. Next, the teacher calls on the student sitting in the back of the class.

The student proudly states, “Although Abraham Lincoln freed millions of slaves, he strongly believed that whites were superior to blacks.” The class grew quiet, and the teacher looked in surprise at the student. “Um, that’s an interesting viewpoint, but if Lincoln did have that belief, do you think he would have freed millions of slaves? Think about it.” With their comment being dismissed, the student ashamedly shook their head and sat quietly in their seat. The teacher carried on with the lesson.

In classrooms all across America, there are young maturing students who don’t “receive a piece of candy” for answering questions that go against what the teacher is teaching. But why? Why are we discouraged from seeing a topic in a contrary perspective to that of the ideas set within the curriculum? Open-mindedness allows students to see issues critically from an opposing view and to evaluate their preconceived assumptions. Who doesn’t agree with that? However, modern school systems are restricting this ability from us; resulting in us to learn in an environment that teaches us there is only one way to view the outside world. But is there really one way to view the world?

If it wasn’t for the Internet, teenagers today would still only believe Christopher Columbus was an amazing explorer that discovered the New World and had a massive feast with the Native Americans. Crazy, right? Teaching a classroom of students in a selective perspective only prohibits their growth, doesn’t it? School is only teaching us the preferred side of a story, the story that assimilates us with the rest of society. Wait, isn’t school supposed to create higher thinkers? But yet, the school system creates a curriculum that only highlights socially accepted views and topics; thus, narrowing our beliefs and assumptions.

Objectively, school is supposed to teach us the history of the United States and the world. Am I right? All throughout school, we have been informed again and again about the evils of slavery and how it was one of America’s worst eras. From depressing in-class documentaries to vivid at-home reads, slavery is a staple of American history. Strikingly, the school system failed to inform me that the act of slavery has been practiced long before it ever happened when America was “discovered”; meaning the practiced was normal. Now does that mean slavery is morally right? In contemporary terms, of course not; but why do we only emphasize African enslavement in America when discussing racism? Certainly, there have been other groups of people other than blacks that have been enslaved. Have you ever had a lesson each school year discussing the terrifying era of Native American enslavement?

This way of teaching only provides students with half true facts and limits their knowledge.

Growing up, I’ve always been fed information without being skeptical about it. I accepted what I learned, and it shaped my beliefs and assumptions about the world. But isn’t that what school is intended for? To provide us with “facts”? I’m not saying school teaches us complete lies, it just doesn’t teach us the full story. Providing students with “half” facts and sending them into the world is detrimental to their role as a citizen. We need to be taught, not from a socially accepted perspective, but from a morally accepted perspective; where we are given information from all viewpoints, disregarding norms and what is socially appropriate. The thought of this idea will certainly frighten many adults, but this is our education. We need to be provided with the tools to shape our mentality. We are the ones being taught the knowledge, so why shouldn’t we examine it? The student who didn’t receive a “piece of candy” shouldn’t be negatively viewed upon or completely dismissed. Instead, we should embark on their ability to view the world differently. Isn’t that what makes each of us special? Think about it.    

What’s the Deal with Living Off-Campus?

by
Picture source: https://eduadvisor.my/articles/pros-cons-living-on-off-campus/

To live on campus or to live off campus? That’s the real question. Chances are if you’re a student at Goucher, you’ve probably noticed that living off-campus doesn’t seem to be all that common. Most Goucher students spend all four of their undergrad years moving from one dorm to another. And, if you’re like me, when you make the decision to live off-campus, Goucher doesn’t exactly offer many resources. Add in the process of submitting the off-campus application and the daunting question of “what next?” and it can be a pretty intimidating experience.

However, I took the plunge. And I’m so glad I did. Living off-campus has been one of the best decisions of my undergrad years. I have my own kitchen where I can cook whenever I want (and not have to worry about a meal plan!). I have my own room, my own space—I actually feel like I have a home. And, most importantly, I can spend as much or as little time as I want on campus, which is a really freeing feeling. While the process for me to live off-campus was a pretty simple one, I talked with other Goucher students to see what their experiences have been like. As a commuter, Cecile Adrian, ’20, said of her experience, “It’s good. I think it’s better for my mental health and emotional being. It’s just nice to have a place and not have to be here all the time.” Further, August Shah, ’20, said, “The quality of life is exponentially different living off campus than on campus. My overall experience with being off campus is amazing for the most part.”

Although living off-campus can seem like a great option, sometimes it can be difficult. While living on Goucher’s campus means you’re only a walk away from your friends and resources such as the Ath, Alice’s, and any on-campus events, sometimes I feel a bit distant. I don’t always know about stuff happening on campus or last-minute events, but for me that isn’t really a big deal. Ari Schlossberg, ‘19, shared his opinion on this saying, “On the other hand, all of my friends are here [and] sometimes I miss out on stuff.” This is something other students relate to as well. Melina Albornoz, ’20, said, “The hardest part about commuting is that sometimes I feel ‘out of the loop’ when it comes to on campus events,” although she adds, “but that’s not a major issue for me. Overall, I really enjoy commuting; it gives me the option of being on campus or at home.” Similarly, August Shah, ’20, said, “The only downside [of living off-campus] is that I am not integrated much into the community with peers because of being off campus,” and adds, “but to me, that’s a very small downside.” For some students, they still feel just as connected to Goucher living off-campus as when they lived in the dorms. Cecile Adrian, ’20, said, “I don’t feel like I’m missing out or like I’m less a part of this community. I maintain all of my friendships, relationships, and involvement.”

When asked what the hardest part of living off-campus is, most other students I spoke with agreed on the commute. Ari Schlossberg, ‘19, said, “Definitely the commute. That’s the worst part.” He adds, “But it’s a valuable trade off. Definitely worth it!” When talking about the difficulties of commuting, Zoe Shimberg, ’22, warns, “If you do want to commute, be prepared, be very prepared.” It can definitely be frustrating at times, especially finding parking mid-day! I think that’s one of the most difficult things I’ve had to deal with.

After reading this, you might be wondering about the application process. I know when I was thinking of applying, I heard so many horrible stories I was nervous I would encounter a similar fate. However, I was lucky to have my application approved without any major difficulties. Ari Schlossberg, ‘19, had a similar experience and said, “At the time, Res Life was really helpful…With Goucher, moving out was easy.” Some students had a more difficult time, such as August Shah, ’20, who said, “Applying to live off campus was atrocious and so unnecessarily difficult.” I honestly think it depends on your situation, and while some people have had a more difficult time with their process, I don’t think it should deter you from trying it for yourself.

Thinking of living off-campus? For me, taking that next step into “adulting” has been a very valuable experience. While there will always be positives and negatives, pros and cons, if you think popping that Goucher Bubble is the best move for you, then I say go for it! I’m sure glad I did. And, after talking with other Goucher students, I can tell you they are too. Living on campus is a great option, but if you’re ready to take the next step, I think living off-campus should be something more Goucher students consider.

Politicizing the Judicial Process

by

 

This article will not focus on the other disqualifying factors regarding Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, as his previous judicial record, honesty, and disposition during the senate hearing could fill a paper alone. This piece will focus specifically on one aspect of this legal episode: the investigation performed by the FBI into Brett Kavanaugh’s past. The investigation, while not available to the public, was performed into the two credible allegations of sexual assault against Judge Kavanaugh, both by Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez. This investigation was limited in scope to those allegations (so it did not look into his alleged drinking habits), and was limited to the course of one week. Because of the limited scope of this investigation, the results produced should in no way shift more doubt onto the allegations of either women.

 

Understanding the limited scope of this investigation requires an understanding of how sex crime investigations are formatted. Investigations like this work outward-in, starting with those with limited knowledge, and then working towards those who have distinct, firsthand knowledge of events (Stein). More specifically, after speaking to the victim and completing any initial search warrants that might be needed, investigators go first to disclosure witnesses, or those people who the victim first came forward to. In the case of Dr. Ford, these witnesses could have been her husband, therapist, as well as other friends that she had disclosed her experience to. The disclosure witnesses provide information as to who may need to be contacted next, as well as provide additional verification that they were advised of what happened, when, and what the victim may have forgotten or left out of the report.

 

With this information, investigators contact those with knowledge of the location or event, but not the incident in question. In this situation, those witnesses would be the other students or those at the party in question who did not witness the actual crime in question. These witnesses can speak to the behavior of both parties, as well as corroborate that the location did in fact exist, and that both people were present. From those witnesses, investigators move to fact witnesses, or those with firsthand knowledge of the attack: the people who were in the room. Finally, investigators re-interview both the victim and suspect, with the information gathered from the investigation up to that point.

 

With that said, it is clear that an investigation of this type is a complex, multi-layered endeavor. By nature, it takes time; people respond slowly, search warrants often take weeks or months to return, and leads constantly pop up and need to be followed up on. In the course of an average investigation, multitudes of people will be interviewed, re-interview, and re-re-interviewed. It is not possible to complete an investigation of this caliber in a week, regardless of the size of the agency or skill of agents. The FBI itself even acknowledges this fact, stating on the report summary to the public that “[o]nly those with firsthand knowledge of the attacks were investigated” (FBI Report). The FBI only spoke with fact witnesses, completing only one of a multitude of investigative steps. This is not a jab at the talent or scope of the FBI; they simply were not given the time to interview people who could potentially have information, but were not fact witnesses. In doing this, however, the FBI missed dozens of people who have stepped forward as either disclosure or location witnesses, who very well could have valuable information.

 

In light of the #MeToo movement, with a growing willingness of the United States population to take seriously accusations of sexual assault and harassment, it is deeply frustrating that political whims would be put over a proper investigation into an act that would immediately disqualify someone considered for the most powerful court in the country. It goes without saying that this is a setback that will sit with us, as a country, as Brett Kavanaugh serves a life term on the Court. Perhaps there will be another, more conclusive investigation done in the future though it will be far more difficult to remove him from the Court than it would have been to prevent him from obtaining the position initially. Both of those steps, however, first require the recognition that a new investigation is warranted, and that the investigation performed prior to his confirmation was incomplete.

 

Duncan Miller serves as a Reserve Deputy Sheriff with a full service Sheriff’s Office in Northeastern Georgia. He is a certified, sworn police officer with advanced, specialized training in criminal investigations, and spent the summer working in the Special Victims Unit of the department.

 

Sources:

 

FBI Report: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/supplemental-fbi-investigation-executive-summary

 

Guide to sexual assault procedures: Abuse investigation Rubric and Abuse Investigation Protocol, Richard Stein, 2017

 

The Importance of Public Discourse

by
Picture Source: Public Photo Credit: Discourse: Importance & Strategies | Study.com

 

I am writing today because the atmosphere at Goucher has, for the duration of my studies here, been lacking healthy public discourse. That is not to say people are not sharing their opinions with their friends, nor is it to say that people have been censored. Public discourse is more than just talking about international maritime trade law over lunch. The Goucher Bubble has alienated many students on campus, not because they feel they are a minority politically, but because there are no safe spaces for dissenting opinions to be voiced. Conversations must be held on all aspects of our modern world. This includes the direction Goucher College has taken. Majors being phased out is only part of the story; the very identity of liberal arts is being redefined and we, students, must be a part of that conversation. Us students must create mechanisms for voicing ourselves to each other and to the larger Goucher institution.

To achieve these goals, I first must ask club leaders to invite speakers who are relevant and even radical. There is a valid argument as how to discriminate and chose which speakers we can and cannot invite. I am not going to provide a simple answer as to who should be provided the platform and who should not. That decision rests with club leaders, but I would say that if one has an unpopular belief, they are no less worthy of sharing their opinion for it. Learning about differing understandings creates bridges between people who have different narratives. A Republican pro-coal politician in West Virginia has a legitimate narrative just like young Democratic Socialist from Queens. We need to seek out these narratives and have them told to the Goucher student body so we all gain a more comprehensive understanding of the world we live in.

My second proposition is intended for the greater campus population. I encourage all of you to seek out groups to have these conversations. Do not be afraid to challenge yourself, and do not succumb to the mistake of judging someone’s character based on how they understand the world. If someone carries a moral stance that you reject, let them elaborate it, and if they are wrong, their explanation and a discussion should correct it. I am a firm believer in the ability of freedom of discussion and a society, no matter how small, that makes discord topics taboo further creates a detachment from the larger community it inhabits.

I also encourage all students to voice their opinions by attending faculty meetings and by engaging with professors and administrators when appropriate. Bring up Goucher’s identity in class, if permitting. What does a liberal arts education mean, and has Goucher betrayed it or merely modernized it? I have witnessed many incidents where opinions were screaming to be heard but there was no one willing to speak them. Breathe life into these opinions – there are avenues, including the one you are currently reading, for a minority dissension to be heard. Take a stance and I, along with the community, will respect you for it. If you are compelling enough, we may even join in with you.

 

Is Goucher Allowing Bon Appetite to Steal From Students?

by

Last year, Bon Appetite at Goucher had a much simpler way of going about meal plans. I’d sign up for the meal plan I felt best fit my needs and that’s what I was given for the semester. Say I signed up for the largest meal plan with 240 meals; I’d get that number of meals and I could use them whenever and however I wanted.

Now, Goucher has come up with a new plan on how to better manage our meal plan needs. I can still choose my meal plan, but there’s a catch. If I sign up for the now largest nineteen meals per week plan, all I get is nineteen meals to use over the course of a week and they’re use-or-lose. If I don’t use all nineteen, they will disappear, meaning I can’t save meal swipes for later in the semester or whatever I choose.

Additionally, last year I was given three-hundred dining dollars (flex) to use at other dining locations on campus over the semester. But this year, that has been cut down to two-hundred-fifty dollars on flex to use.

What gives, Goucher?

I stumbled upon a petition demanding that Goucher make a few changes to the meal plans. First, make food equitable, meaning we should be able to use our meal swipes throughout the semester and across campus in locations such as Alice’s. Meal swipes not used during any given week should always roll over to the next. Second, food should be available in more locations, meaning Goucher needs to reopen The Van and open Alice’s for longer hours including Sunday nights. Goucher need to make the main dining hall hours longer at night and on the weekends. Third, no tax on flex. These, and other demands, had to be met by Bon Appetite last Thursday (September 13th), and students must have a transparent email detailing the plans to make it happen. Since demands haven’t been met and there has been no communication from Goucher or Bon Appetite, students were planning on protesting in Dorsey on Monday (September 17th). Which did not happen.

I am upset that our semester meal plan was changed to a weekly plan and my mind keeps coming back to one particular thought. I cannot resist wondering if Goucher is allowing Bon Appetit to steal from its students. Yes, I knowingly signed up for the meal plan assuming what my needs on a weekly basis would be, but my meal swipes are disappearing because I choose to eat somewhere besides the dining hall (not including the Pick Three option at The Market, which takes meal swipes). My flex has gone down by fifty dollars. Last year, I used every last penny of my three-hundred flex dollars.

Thankfully, Goucher has admitted to some of its mistakes and refunded all of the tax that was charged on flex, which is a step in the right direction. I’m not saying that there is a right or wrong way to go about feeding a campus full of students. I am simply saying that there should be a way to go about meal plans that makes everyone happy.

 

Liberal Arts Are Changing — And That Isn’t A Bad Thing

by

What is Goucher College? Are we still a liberal arts school even without majors in math, theater, Jewish studies, and Russian? Even if the recently announced phasing out of certain majors does not directly affect many students on campus today, unintended consequences of these decisions may have a broader impact. What does this mean for our identity and future and, perhaps more importantly, was this the right decision?

Clearly, there will be some short-term and potentially damaging consequences. Professors in cut majors may lose their motivation for teaching in areas now deemed unessential. Through this process, many of us students who are future alumni and future donors felt disenfranchised. We were not meaningfully invited to critical meetings where decisions were made, and the most important meetings were strictly closed to students. This neglect may impact students’ current and future commitment to the school.

That being said, with every decision, there are winners and losers. Even at a non-profit institution, hard decisions have to be made. Higher education in the United States ultimately must face economic reality, and we risk losing everything if we fail to make hard financial decisions. If, as argued, many of the discontinued majors were unsustainable from an economic standpoint, their continued funding posed a real problem for Goucher’s big picture. If student enrollment did not support these programs, why and how can we justify maintaining them? Do these curriculum changes have an existential impact, calling into question our status as a liberal arts college?

Photo Credit: ingridperri.com

Technical skills education versus general study have been pitted against each other since the institutionalization of education. Roman Patrician families bought Greek slaves as tutors for their teenage boys to ensure proper education in areas of mathematics, grammar, rhetoric, history, and logic. These skills were essential for a liberalis, a free man, to participate in civic life. Specializing in a technical skill was exclusive to slaves. With the fall of the Western Roman Empire, all education was further limited only to the clergy; even noble families were largely illiterate for hundreds of years. The first universities, such as Oxford, were established in 1096. As time progressed, Late Medieval education primarily required choosing between training to be doctor, lawyer, or clergy, or, for the wealthy, the study of the artes liberales.

Higher education in the United States took liberal arts to the next level during the 19th century. Harvard and Yale, once religious institutions, became centers of liberal arts. Higher education was no longer reserved for elite white men. Women’s colleges, like Bryn Mawr, Wellesley, and the Women’s College of Baltimore, later renamed Goucher College, were founded. Historically black colleges were established: Spelman College, Howard University, and many more. Educating these once marginalized populations was critical to women’s suffrage and desegregation, along with a huge liberalizing impact on society in the United States.

The 20th century challenged this wave of liberal arts enthusiasm with the creation of research universities and large state schools. These larger institutions promised specialized skills much more affordably than private institutions and threatened small liberal arts colleges. As such, public universities expanded higher education across class lines to more people than private institutions could ever hope to reach. By simply increasing the number of students in a lecture hall, costs per student for professor salaries, heating, and administration could be reduced.

In the 21st century, the major financial challenges to Goucher and other small, private liberal arts schools nationally have only increased. Higher costs due to health care, pensions, and the demand for high quality updated physical structures on campus have only put more demands on small private colleges. Specifically, over the past several years, Goucher has been suffering from serious financial deficit. Phasing out of unpopular majors is only one correction to address this. Investing in new First-Year dorms and a new dining hall, while increasing short term costs, will hopefully attract more students to Goucher and make us more competitive. Keeping unsuccessful majors is not an investment in the future.

On the bright side, despite the loss of some student majors, perhaps the unspent funds could be redirected to better supporting successful departments. For example, psychology is one of the most popular majors at Goucher, yet the department’s funds were essentially redirected to support the book studies minor. Fundamentally, that is unfair to the psychology department, who could use their own funds to invest in themselves, helping attract the best and brightest students to Goucher.

But how does this impact our status and does that matter? Liberal arts in the 21st century cannot be the liberal arts of the ancient Greeks or the Middle Ages, or even the 19th century. The world has changed and the unfortunate truth is that the phased-out majors are unpopular nationwide. Peace studies is one of our most popular majors, but it is only is sixty years old; a baby when compared to most departments!

We must adapt and endure in spite of the fact that we may feel forgotten or ignored. We as a student body must pull together. I am not advocating passivity; I am advocating for clear heads and a willingness to evolve. I hope with time we can begin working together—all Goucher students, administration, faculty, and alumni—for a better community on campus.

It’s More than the Title – Crazy Rich Asians

by

For the first time in a quarter of a century, Hollywood has made a rom-com movie with an all Asian cast entitled Crazy Rich Asians. Starring Constance Wu, Harry Shum Jr, Awkwafina, Ken Jeong, Remmy Tan, Michelle Yeoh, Henry Golding and so many more, the lineup is breaking grounds. This book turned movie is hitting the big screen on August 17, 2018 and is one of the few blockbuster films starring Asians in lead roles (but the only one with a full Asian cast) this summer. Backed by Warner Brothers and directed by Jon M. Chu, known for Justin Bieber: Never Say Never, Step Up and Now You See Me 2, the trailer for the highly anticipated movie dropped on April 23 on The Ellen Show.

Now, for some, the plot may seem a bit too generic. Rich man falls in love with a poor woman, decides to introduce her to his family, his mother doesn’t think the woman is good enough, and hilarity/drama ensues. But for the Asian American community, this is a huge deal. For, in Hollywood, Asian American representation is not very common since the practice of whitewashing of roles in major films is very frequent. With the most publicized of these being Emma Stone in Aloha, Tilda Swinton in Doctor Strange, Scarlett Johansson in Ghost in a Shell, basically the whole cast of The Last Airbender, and Matt Smith in The Great Wall. Even Crazy Rich Asians and the soon to be made, live-action Mulan, almost became the victim of whitewashing too. And so, while YouTube creators like Wong Fu Productions, Anna Akana, and Domics produce lots of stories about the Asian American/mundane experiences of life, and television shows like Fresh Off the Boat, My Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, Dr. Kim and Master of None fill in some of the gaps with regards to representation for Asian Americans, the impact is not the same.

However, with all the fanfare around this film, it should be noted that the movie does not represent every Asian American experience. I mean, how could it? It’s an hour to two-hour long film! But if anyone wants to hear more about this topic, the YouTube channel FUNG BROS did a video called CRAZY RICH ASIANS – WHY YOU SHOULD NOT WATCH IT AND WHY YOU SHOULD.

This conversation about what the movie means is only a small part of a much larger discussion. No matter how one spins it, Crazy Rich Asians is a step forward towards representation in the media for Asians and Asian Americans.

Photo Credit: Google Images

The Webcomics Vacuum

by

The Webcomics Vacuum

Webcomics are amazing medium, filled will all sorts of experimentation, talent and a diversity of stories, people, and topics that make it wholly unlike any other sector of comics. These comics, though, are severely underrepresented in the wider comic journalism world. Webcomics just aren’t given the space alongside their print counterparts on sites such as IGN, CBR, or the site I work for, Multiversity Comics. The question remains then, why?

Well, that’s what I’m going to try to talk about in this article. Before I try to tackle that, I want to give you an idea of what the webcomic review landscape actually looks like instead of making broad, seemingly baseless claims.

(My Best Approximation of) The State of the Industry

Regardless of what my prior statements may have implied, webcomics are not invisible to comic review sites, as evidenced by the multitude of “best of” webcomic/digital comic lists, and even a category on NPR’s yearly summer series, “Let’s Get Graphic: 100 Favorite Comics and Graphic Novels.” Yet, once the award season has come and gone, they disappear into the ether, with nary a discussion to be see. We hear all about the fantastic in blurbs and yet we come away knowing only a title, a small description and the knowledge that it has caught the attention of enough people. Where is the breakdown, the lengthier analysis of what makes them award worthy? For those that aren’t on the lists but are no less good, where are the highlights of these? Where is the coverage of the new, the strange, the historic?

On sites with recognizable names? Nowhere. Or, more specifically, nowhere prominent or dedicated. Gizmodo has a webcomics tag but it’s sparsely populated. One of its sister sites, Kotaku, has one as well, although it hasn’t had an article since 2016. Newsarama had a column called “The Wild World of Webcomics” which only ran for one, possibly two, years (2011-12), according to the tag on their site. The most recent, and most consistent, webcomics column is from The Beat, though even that one is inconsistent in its updates, with last year being an obvious push to cover more webcomics than in previous years as a part of the site’s “A Year of Free Comics” series. While it seems to have shifted to a bi-weekly schedule since the start of the new year instead of the wildly ambitious attempt at DAILY REVIEWS FOR A YEAR – an attempted feat to be commended – this still isn’t close to the coverage that “regular” comics get.

There are, however, a few dedicated webcomic review sites. These sites tend to be lone blogs run by one person or, in rarer cases, a small team of people. Some are now defunct, such as Wild Webcomic Review, while others, like The Webcomic Overlook, are still alive and kicking. These are also examples of blogs that take a broad, general look at webcomics while there are others take a more specific look. For example, the blog Yes Homo boosts and talks about webcomics that contain positive representation of queer characters.

The only problem here? As is the case with every other site I’ve highlighted, their output isn’t exactly consistent or wide reaching. This shouldn’t be surprising, as they are run by one individual, in their spare time; one cannot expect a single person to be able to comprehensively and consistently review webcomics. The methodology with which these blogs approach webcomics plays into this as well but that is a topic for another day.

As with everything on the internet, I’m sure this doesn’t even come close to touching on the wide variety of smaller blogs that look at webcomics or the scattered posts among other comic review sites. That being said, this is it. These are the biggest, the most comprehensive, the most…well, professional places to find webcomic reviews/analysis on the internet. Again, it’s always possible I’ve missed something but in terms of widespread coverage, there ain’t much.

So, What’s the Deal Here?

My best guesses, and yes, these are just educated guesses, are that there are five major reasons for this lack of coverage. One is that webcomics are a tough medium to review in any sort of regular capacity due to a lack of consistent methodology. Do you review it one chapter at a time? What happens if a chapter is hundreds of pages long? Do you do it by month? Or by number of pages? If something updates frequently, does that mean it gets reviewed more? These questions, and so many more, have to be asked by each reviewer and picking one changes the frequency one can review a webcomic or set of webcomics.

The second is that due to the nature of the medium – lone creators working in their free time on passion projects instead of professionals with an editorial staff – there is a resistance to taking a critical eye to these projects and rightly so. It’s one thing to critique a professionally published DC or Marvel or Image comic and it’s another to critique a single page of a new artist who may or may not be young and just messing around in the internet age.

Third, webcomics are the new kids on the block. They’ve been around in their “modern” form since the publication of Scott McCloud’s fascinating, divisive, and wildly, hilariously outdated yet still relevant book Reinventing Comics in 2001, according to The Comic Journal’s article “The History of Webcomics.” I do realize this article is from 2011 making it, much like Reinventing Comics, wildly and hilariously outdated near the end but it still gives a good, brief look into the webcomic world as seen from over half a decade ago.

But I digress. Webcomics, despite being new, have found their ways in my and many other internet denizens’ lives. Yet they are still fairly niche, more so than “regular” comics. This is in spite of having been around in a similar format for nearly a century and currently seeing a golden age in the public consciousness. The market for reviews of a niche part of a niche medium isn’t exactly a large one.

Hell, even indie comics, as in unconnected to a named publisher like Black Mask or Aftershock, have a hard time finding space alongside the other “floppies” on review sites. You have to have a big name – Terry Moore, Jeff Smith, Carla Speed McNeil – to even be considered for the list.

Fourth, due to the lack of centralization I touched on earlier, finding webcomics, especially new webcomics, is a difficult task. There are, as far as I’m aware, nothing like the Diamond previews for webcomics. If a new series begins, you have to know someone who knows that creator in order to find out or be trawling through the web/hosting platform to find it.

There is also no list of past, published titles that can be easily searched. It’s all disseminated via word of mouth on the part of the reader, the creator or the collective/platform these comics are a part of. Each webcomic is its own world, sometimes a part of a stellar system comprised of many other worlds, other times all alone in the vacuum of space. Travel between worlds only works if you can see the other planets or take a long, hard look at the stars in the sky. Otherwise, you’ll never quite know what’s out there.

And, finally, it could simply be these sites just don’t have the desire to or the staff to cover a wide variety of webcomics. Here is my most speculative point. I do not know the staff numbers of other sites nor do I know the readership numbers on the sites I have cited in this article. However, based on the volume of articles and the number of different contributor names I’ve seen, I can make an educated guess as to the size of the various, non-webcomic focused sites.

Some sites have a small staff. Keeping up with news, “regular” comics and other content such as comics-adjacent TV & Movie reviews takes a lot of work and there may not be enough time in the day to cover them. Additionally, I’m sure a lot of these sites don’t make a lot of money, what with advertising and the way ads work on the internet being what it is, and so, unlike a newspaper/newspaper site, keeping staff members on retainer that work all day isn’t feasible. Again, this is just an educated guess. I don’t know how much money these sites make nor who is full-time nor who gets paid per post.

So, if a site doesn’t have the staff to spare to diversify their content to cover a notoriously tricky, decentralized and niche piece of a market, it stands to reason that there isn’t any desire to push for any consistent or comprehensive – an impossibility, I know – or critical webcomic representation. It isn’t worth it to delve into the history of anything webcomic related or do a retrospective on something like “Digger” or “8-bit Theater.”

If it sounds like I’m being too harsh on these sites, believe me I’m not trying to be harsh or critical of them. This is just the reality of the situation. I could also be wrong about these reasons, although I suspect that some combination of these factors is the truth. Motivations are a complicated and many times subconscious thing, guessing at them is a shot in the dark. Do not think ill of them for their mistakes, they are only human.

Photo credit: Google Images

A Letter To The President

by

Dear José Antonio Bowen,
I am a fifth grader from the Park School of Baltimore, and I am writing to you about an issue we have been talking about in class: gun violence and school shootings. The recent march in Washington spread the word about the problem of guns in schools, and now it is time to take action and make a change.
We were thinking about what we could do as fifth graders to support this cause. I believe that if more young adults were informed about the importance of voting, perhaps they could help reform gun laws and protect future children from gun violence. For this reason I am writing to Maryland colleges to encourage their students to vote.
Do you know that only 21% of young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 vote? Young people should be excited to vote because they have just gotten the power to make their voices heard, and they can use that power to address the problems in their communities. Young people need not be copies of their parents and subject to the influence of others. Instead, they should exercise their right to vote in order to make positive changes in society. I would like to encourage college students to vote by making posters and putting them up at your school.

Sincerely,
Juliet Sims

[Provided by the Office of the President]

Why I’ve Become More Conservative Since Leaving Goucher – An Alum’s Perspective

by

Nobody asked out loud how best to save the world. We didn’t have to.
I was sitting in class in Van Meter in 2011 or 2012 when a discussion on socioeconomic decline in Baltimore took a philosophical turn. At a surface level, we talked about things like how to become locally involved. On another level, we talked about something much bigger. Baltimore’s socioeconomics was a prompt just abstract enough, just far enough from our own experiences, that the best answer seemed to be to reflect on our own personal philosophical templates for how best to achieve change.
Four years after graduating from Goucher, I sometimes think back to that discussion and what it revealed about how Goucher students view the world and how to fix it – and how, in turn, Goucher shows the world to its students.
“Start a civic organization,” “build a new social network,” “galvanize people with social media campaigns,” were some of the ideas proposed. While there was no shortage of variety, they all had one thing in common, which was that change required the creation of something new; it was necessarily a challenge to established norms. Better to work for an NGO critical of the World Bank rather than for the World Bank. Better to work for a nonprofit rather than the private sector. Let’s describe it as an outside-the-system mentality of changemaking.
Only one student proposed anything else to help Baltimore, and it indeed seemed an especially dull idea. “There are already plenty of great causes and organizations in Baltimore,” they said. Why not join one?
That turns out to be important.
“Change” is an abstract notion. But insofar as the attitude one takes toward it will inform the thousands of important decisions one will make throughout life about career or lifestyle, it has real consequences. Liberal arts students should recognize that adopting an outside-the-system change maker’s mindset – and surrounding themselves with people who share that mindset – potentially distorts awareness of what is actually achievable, paving the way to disillusionment and disappointment. A wiser mindset is one which recognizes that worthwhile change usually comes from demonstrating success within recognized roles or organizations. That, in turn, gives you authority and power—recall that one of reasons Barack Obama gave for attending law school after his years as a community organizer in Chicago (a little-recognized role if there ever was one) was to acquire power.
In my case, the belief that I could succeed outside of recognizable roles or institutions caused me to make impractical choices. My first two years out of college I spent determined to find ways to become a short story writer or novelist — jobs which don’t exist. Goucher can hardly be blamed for foisting that ambition on me, but it did give it room and oxygen to breathe and take on life of its own.
More immediately, I decided that I would go overseas to teach English, first in Beijing and then Hong Kong. I had a great time, and I don’t regret it. But I can now acknowledge that it likely set back progress on career advancement as a journalist, in part by postponing a reckoning with what I wanted for a career. No professor ever directly encouraged this off-the-beaten-road journey of mine. But I can only observe that I departed Goucher as thoroughly committed to that journey as ever.
Why was it, that day in the classroom in Van Meter, that so many students, myself included, immediately conceived of change as something that came from the outside, rather than from within?
One reason may be the homogeneity of political and social beliefs at schools like Goucher. This can make it easy to imagine that alternative perspectives are one-dimensional, lacking in complexity and merit. From that starting point, it is natural to imagine that one already possesses the only quality one needs in order to create something different: willpower. But that is short-sighted. Willpower uncoupled to a recognizable organization or career path or institution will earn you only frustration. Experience outside college quickly shows that not only are practical barriers more taxing to political or social ideals than one anticipates – you’ll find ways to rationalize the compromising of any number of beliefs in order to have a stable paycheck – but also that the establishment institutions or organizations that are all too easy to vilify from campus are in reality constrained by any number of practical realities. In theory, students appreciate those practical realities. In practice, they take some time to hit home.
A smarter attitude to changemaking begins with recognizing the limits to how much change you can achieve. This is a notion intimately tied to the recognition that good solutions already exist. This may sound abstract, but it successfully diagnoses problems in any number of social arenas. In politics, there is no substitute for voting and civic engagement. In journalism, there is no magic antidote to declining readership in an era of instantaneous information, only quality journalism. And so on.
From this follows the recognition that change is most effectively delivered by accruing power within existing institutions and organizations. Achieving success this way demonstrates credibility, and allows people in positions of power to trust you by giving you some of their power. And being in power puts you in a far stronger position to bring change than being out of power.
Let’s assume the two assumptions here are correct: that change is best achieved by individuals who leverage power accrued within established institutions (not from outside them), and that liberal arts colleges like Goucher tend to foster the perspective that change happens from the outside in. Then these schools risk engineering a massive transfer of talent and collective conscience into marginalized roles, while at the same time leaving the world’s institutions to be run by less socially conscious individuals. NGOs will always be a critical part of the world’s democratic systems. But they will never be in the driver’s seat.
We should not allow the world’s institutions to be left to individuals who may lack strong social awareness or even the desire for change. Little by little, the students at schools like Goucher will save the world. But they will be more effective at it by recognizing that the savviest attitude to change is often one that recognizes rather than minimizes limits.

SCOTT CARPENTER ’14

1 2 3 5
Go to Top