Opinion - page 7

Drew Phillips, Staff Writer

March 5th, 2017

This past general election highlighted a disregard of rules, laws, and norms from both major party candidates. The greatest violation however, was that of an institutional electoral principle: the moderating effect of the general election.

Pundits and politicos speculated, that following the primaries, both candidates would move from their fringier primary positions on issues and realign to centrist positions that tend to attract more moderate voters—as they usually do. Perhaps this did not occur because Americans are too disillusioned by our political system to make the candidates pay for their polarized positions. Or, maybe this principle didn’t kick in because of the cannibalistic nature of both parties these days. Mrs. Clinton was perceived to be forced left on her platform to pick up Sanders voters necessary for a general election win. At the same time, Mr. Trump was forced to stick to some particularly unsavory and unorthodox policy prescriptions he laid out during the Republican primaries to re-energize a majority white, male coalition, which needed to turn out in full force for him to have a chance at winning. It could be that this principle didn’t kick in simply because this was an oddity of an election year, which was highly unpredictable on multiple fronts—a notion which is certainly possible, but one I don’t find probable; this year’s anomalies seem to be indicative of a larger trend away from moderation.

To consider what moderation truly is, I looked back to a New York Times opinion piece written by David Brooks leading up to the 2012 re-election of Barack Obama. In the piece, Brooks notes that a moderate does not commit herself to “an abstract idea,” but instead holds dear her country’s way of living “and the animating principle behind that way of life.” In America, Brooks suggests, this animating principle is that “we are a nation of immigrants dedicated to the American dream—committed to the idea that each person should be able to work hard and rise.”

I cannot think of a more relevant quote for the way our current political dialogue operates. The two ideas within this sentence should be read in concert, but in our newly anointed tradition of cherry-picking points to fit our current political narrative, it seems all too easy to envision a liberal using the “nation of immigrants” section to oppose President Trump’s policies, and equally simple to picture a conservative backing the “work hard and rise” portion to oppose some social justice initiative. This is problematic because we are creating an environment in political dialogue where one must pick sides; something that looks a lot like how a conversation would go between two followers of different religions trying to convince each other of their view’s legitimacy. In the simplest sense, this environment is tribal, it creates false choices and politicizes otherwise apolitical topics.

Our representatives then come to embody these tribal allegiances. As we saw in the general election, when we stick to our tribes, regardless of circumstance—which Brooks warns against—a slippery slope can develop. You may then encounter situations where even though Mr. Trump is the personal antithesis of nearly everything you stand for, he’s allegedly a Republican, your party picked him as their nominee, and it would be political suicide for you as a representative to disavow him. Or on the other side of the spectrum, Mr. Trump ends up winning on a platform of nothing less than the equivalent to a slap in the face for progressives everywhere, and you, the good Democrat you are, decide to oppose everything he puts his name on over the course of the next four years. Neither of these scenarios, both of which have occurred over the last few months, reveal a healthy political climate.

Perhaps instead, as a principled Democrat or Republican, but most of all, a principled American, you would realize that there is a more productive middle ground. As Brooks puts it: “There are no ultimate solutions. The moderate tries to preserve the tradition of conflict, keeping the opposing sides balanced. She understands that most public issues involve trade-offs. In most great arguments, there are two partially true points of view, which sit in tension. The moderate tries to maintain a rough proportion between them, to keep her country along its historic trajectory.”

The way to foster moderation is to reward it in Congress and statehouses everywhere. Moderates need to organize and become a political bloc, and then most importantly, turn out in primaries and general elections — just like so many other interest groups have done throughout electoral history. As it stands now, moderates are the most underrepresented group of people in American politics.

The best solutions our society has found to problems over time have usually been those that form under the pressure of opposing interests. They have checks and balances built into them and they are connected to our country’s “animating principles,” rather than whatever flavor of the month ideology happens to be in charge in D.C. These are the solutions that keep the most citizens satisfied and they come from the citizens themselves, exercising moderation. Solutions that advertise deviations away from our American foundations tend to not be fixes at all, but instead, increases in arbitrary power–part of what got us in this mess in the first place.

Michael Layer, Sports Editor

March 5th, 2017

Last Monday, February 20th, the Peace Studies department held an interdisciplinary lecture conceptualizing how Donald Trump won the most recent election and a prediction of what the future will look like in his time in office. Speakers included Martin Shuster from Judaic Studies, Lana Oweidat from English, Danny Kimball from Communications, and Yousuf Al-Bulushi from the Peace Studies Department. The nearly two hour lecture was livestreamed by The Quidecim and posted on its Facebook page.

The lecture was attended by roughly 45 students and had many viewers online.  Though many professors gave different takes on the reasons why Trump won the election, all four professors spoke about one common theme: white liberal opposition.

Martin Shuster criticized the way white liberals try to make Donald Trump seem unrepresentative of American politics. He cites examples of Trump’s administration’s policies being contrary to American ideals of liberty, equality, and justice. Shuster finds that white liberals hold Trump up to be diametrically opposed to American values. They glamorize former President Obama, unaware that he deported nearly three milllion people, the most of any American president in history. Shuster mentioned when white liberals are quick to criticize Trump for his proposed marginalization of Muslim, Latina/o/x, and LGBTQA+ citizens, they are often silent and therefore complicit the current ostracism of African Americans, white supremacy, and unjust deportation of people in the United States. It appears that white liberals fight against injustice only when it applies to their agenda.

Lana Oweidat provided an interesting critique of white liberalism. She compared the conscious way Trump supporters seek to marginalize Muslim people mirrors the unintentional way white liberals marginalize Muslim people through messages of solidarity. She brought up political scientific studies that show that anti-Muslim sentiments peak, not after terrorist attacks, but during election cycles. To her, Islamophobia “can be used as a tool of public manipulation.” Oweidat first considers the way Trump supporters “consume” an unfounded fear of the Islamic faith and reveals that because of their anxiety, they are more open to promises of “totality, conformity, and prejudice.” This conscious Islamophobia contrasts with unwise white liberal attempts to promote unity, but ends up as cultural appropriation and stereotypical misrepresentation. Oweidat says that these attempts, though well intentioned, can be just as harmful as the prejudice white liberals who want to overturn by imposing their white, western, American values. Oweidat urges white liberals to be conscious that their culture is not the only one and not more important than any other.

Danny Kimball, a Communications professor, discussed the media’s coverage of the most recent election, specifically social media’s role of disseminating ‘fake news.’ He talks about how news media covers political campaigns as a ‘horserace,’ encouraging a commercial, sensationalist, ratings driven coverage of American politics. Political coverage in this way gives rise to information more focused on entertainment, rather than a commitment to the truth. Social media played an important role in the election, specifically fragmenting, polarizing, and radicalizing the population: “The algorithms of social media platforms are designed to show us more of what we already think… and that further acts to polarize a segregated society ever more apart from each other.” Kimball claims that social media platforms acted as echo chambers (silos or bubbles) where people only engaged with information that agreed with their bias. On Election Day, he felt that white liberals weren’t compelled to campaign or simply vote because they felt comfortable reading sources that predicted Clinton winning.

Peace Studies professor, Yousuf Al-Bulushi, spoke about the concept of Liberalism and how global politics became polarized. Al-Bulushi began his remarks by comparing Trump’s candidacy to other populist movements in American history. He also gave a brief history of how American liberalism focused on white, straight, Christian, property owning men. White centrists felt comfortable with their dominant place in American political culture until several civil rights movements and the economic crash of 2008 threatened white supremacy. A right-wing backlash was created in response to a perceived lack of social status among white centrists that were focused on the prominence of Barack Obama and #BlackLivesMatter. In the 2016 campaign, when Clinton appealed to white centrism, many white centrists had already become Trump supporters, who were promised a return to the white supremacy of the eighties.

The Trump: Teach In was focused on ways to analyze the manner in which Trump won the 2016 election. The lecture was thoughtful, insightful, and critical of both Donald Trump and white liberals whose shortsightedness failed to thwart him.

Drew Phillips, Staff Writer

February 25th, 2017

The phenomenon we have been witnessing over the course of the last several months surrounding the U.S. Department of Education and newly appointed Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, has been an enlightening microcosm of what’s been happening on the political left of late. The ordeal has been a controversy since the beginning, when President Trump chose DeVos as his selection for the position, and came to a peak Tuesday, February 7th when she was confirmed by the Senate with Vice President Pence’s tie breaking vote. These last few months have illuminated several things.

First, Mrs. DeVos’ fierce opposition in the Senate showed that Democratic politicians appear to be more beholden to the wishes of the teacher’s unions—generally one of their largest benefactors—than any other interest group in the country (it turns out money talks for Democrats too). Second, this opposition unsurprisingly showed what the Democrat’s political tactics will be like during the Trump presidency, and that much of the left has not learned their lesson following Trump’s election. Many continue to see their way of conceptualizing and solving issues—in this case the education system—as the only way to look at things; anyone who deviates from their perspective is on the other team and is subject to ridicule. Lastly, and most importantly, the outcry against Mrs. DeVos shows how little people at Goucher and across the country know about school choice. Mrs. DeVos and school choice should be exactly what members of the Goucher community were looking for in this fresh Department of Education if they are as committed to the task of social justice as they say they are.

School choice is in many circles a dirty term and Goucher College seems to be one of those circles. What is interesting about that, is the level of “school choice” a sizeable chunk of those who attend this school were likely afforded in their education before Goucher. This in part has to do with the relative socioeconomic status of many Goucher students, but generally speaking, school choice is exercised more than people think. 43 percent of American children (23.8 million K-12 students) already exercise school choice in several ways. According to the74million.org, 8.2 million moved their homes to attend a more desired school, 5.9 million chose a traditional district school other than their assigned school, 5.3 million enrolled in a private school, 2.7 million enrolled in a public charter school, and 1.8 million were homeschooled The only free school choice options here are public charter schools and traditional district options—not a large piece of the pie. While yes, anyone is free to move where they live, nobody should have to in order to obtain a decent education, and aside from that, moving to a better school district is a luxury that more well off families may have, but poorer families often do not. Countless studies and experiments have shown time and time again that charter schools improve educational outcomes for poor children, and yet there is such an odd amount of negative press surrounding them, particularly in liberal dialogue. Expanded school choice does not mean the privatization of American schools. It means offering more options to those who need them, so their future is not bleak just because of their socioeconomic status.

The proponents of expanded school choice understand that many children have adequate existing public school options available to them, and they celebrate this, because the idea that drives school choice is providing the best educational options to kids, regardless of the type. Nobody knows the dynamics of specific school districts better than the local school boards looking over them and the states that these school districts exist in. This is why Mrs. DeVos is so adamant in her plans to shrink the Federal government’s role in America’s school system. She has voiced a desire to give power back to the parents, educators, and administrators in their districts, power which has been flowing in the direction of the Federal government since the Bush administration, a trend which has only increased in the past eight years.

Additionally, there are two very common complaints about Mrs. DeVos, particularly with teachers and at Goucher. The first is that she has no experience as an employee of the public education system and is, therefore, unfit for the job. Suggesting that she must know all the ins and outs of education specifics like designing curriculums or writing lesson plans for this position is ludicrous. What Betsy DeVos has experience in is politics, and the job which she has been selected for is inherently a political one. The second claim goes along the lines of the idea that her spending millions of dollars to exert influence over school systems during her lifetime somehow disqualifies her for the job. To address this, I would like to direct attention to the massive national teachers unions which annually spend over $30 million on political causes. They can do this because of the dues most teachers have to pay them and watch them spend with little to no input from the actual teachers themselves.

I got the chance to meet Secretary DeVos last Friday in Washington D.C. and she was nice enough to talk to me for a few minutes. Our conversation was certainly not consequential, however it did highlight a few things about her. She is clearly a strong, powerful woman, who despite her vast fortune and life accomplishments, does not consider herself above taking a salary of one dollar to serve the public. She is someone who would spend four hours on a Friday afternoon meeting people she doesn’t have to, after spending a second straight week getting attacked (worse than usual) by people on the right and left who do not share her views on education reform. These characteristics suggest to me that perhaps instead of selling Mrs. DeVos and her ideas short, we should give them a chance. She is one of the few people in the Trump administration who has a truly clear, positive view for the future; the left should give her the same benefit of the doubt they often afforded the Obama administration.

Sean O’Flaherty, Staff Writer

February 15th, 2017

An atmosphere of toxicity hung over the city. As Donald Trump prepared to be inaugurated as the 45th president. There was a palpable tension hanging in the air. Tension that had built up after a year’s worth of anger stemming from one of the most divisive presidential campaigns in American history.

Entering into the National Mall, Trump supporters and protesters had an uneasy coexistence and they made their way through the security checkpoints. At several checkpoints large groups of protesters linked arm to arm blockaded the street to prevent Trump supporters to be able to attend. Besides a few verbal confrontations and a standoff with the police, the protests were largely peaceful in the beginning of the day. On the National Mall near the Washington Monument, there continued to be this unusual mix of groups opposing and supporting the President. Due to the presence of security officials civility was maintained while President Trump took the oath of office and delivered his inaugural address. It seemed at this point that the rest of the day would be relatively peaceful, as the crowds dispersed with no confrontations.

However, it appeared that as former President Obama flew away on Marine one, he took America’s self restraint with him. Within an hour after the end of the ceremony there were reports of violent “Black Bloc” anarchists rampaging through the streets of DC committing acts of vandalism and assaulting Trump supporters and police officers. As I made my way towards Franklin Square, the reported location of these rioters, I received a text informing me that 90 people had already arrested and there was an escalating violent situation. As I approached Mcpherson Square witnessed these groups firsthand as I came across a rally of some sort. A band on stage played music interrupted only by a range of speakers. There was a assortment of radical far left groups occupying the space, the combination of which conjured up a scene which could have been out of the 1960s. Soon after I arrived a group of Trump supporters came and confronted this groups, as these groups shouted back and forth some escalated into direct physical violence. I noticed further up the road there was a very large crowd of people blocking off traffic. I made my ways towards the scene and stumbled into the heart of the violence reported from earlier. Masked protesters faced off against riot police while others were burning a pile of trash in the street and smashing up a nearby limousine and unmarked police car.  Media from all over the world looked on as the situation deteriorated further. One rioter walked past me with a tire he claimed to had stolen off a Trump supporters car. Within what only seemed like moments later this man had tossed the tire onto the limousine and set it on fire. As the burning rubber mixed with liquor bottles, which had been in the limousine, a large and uncontrolled fire continued to grow. The blaze grew so large that people around me were worried that the engine was going to explode and frantically were telling people to back away from the blaze. Word was spreading that the Washington Post building in which this scene was next to was catching fire. The police realizing the severity of what was happening began to push forward into the crowd causing panic as they shot off tear gas canisters. The large mass of both media and protestors rushing to escape the situation created for a moment a dangerous stampede of people. The police then formed a protective ring around limousine as the fire was put out by first responders.

In the following hour the police set up a perimeter several city blocks wide around Franklin, Mcpherson, and Farragut squares. Because there were several city sanctioned protest events within these squares, there seemed to be some level of confusion within the police and national guard forces. For the rest of the afternoon this chaotic display unfolded of a protest concert playing in the background of a back and forth battle between “Black Bloc” anarchists and riot police in the street. Rocks and bottles were being tossed at the police who answered with tear gas, flashbang grenades, rubber bullets and pepper spray. Throughout the square smaller trash fires were being lit and surrounded by groups of people. I suspect the police worried about a PR nightmare if they were to crack down too forcefully, hoping that it would all fizzle out as the night came. At around 8:30 Franklin Square was still occupied by large groups of protesters and another confrontation between Trump supporters and protesters led to several more fights breaking out. Suddenly, the riot police began to move into the square and break up the remaining crowd in a very coordinated and strategic way. Those who were not arrested in this initial move by the police broke off into smaller groups and began to flee down different streets into other parts of downtown. The group I followed decided to attempt and reach the convention center, where the inaugural ball was being held. The police, realizing, this pursued this group with speed and intensity and eventually was able to surround it in an intersection. Realizing they were not going to be able to reach the convention center, they began to sit down and block the traffic in the intersection. After about 20 minutes, the police started arresting people who remained in the intersection and the day ended in an anticlimactic whimper. The end result the day’s violence was nine police officers injured, six of which were hospitalized, and 217 protesters arrested.

Based on what I saw that day, I believe that the violence and divisiveness will be the tone of the next four years of Trumps presidency. The level of anger that I witnessed leaves me very skeptical on whether any common ground will be reached

Drew Phillips, Staff Writer

February 15th, 2017

These are uncertain times for both the Goucher community and the country. As such, it is important to remember our fundamental ideals more than ever. For this reason, I think it is important to address the state of free expression on our campus.

To do this, it is worth going back to an essay in the Washington Post that President Bowen referenced on Facebook earlier this month. Titled “Why pragmatic liberal education matters now more than ever,” the article is a defense of a liberal arts education by Michael S. Roth, President of Wesleyan University. It lists some of the most important facets of a liberal education: Enhancing student’s abilities to translate across ideas and assumptions, providing students a vehicle to share knowledge, empowering individuals to take productive risks, and my personal favorite, the promotion of intellectual diversity “in such ways that students are inspired to grapple with ideas that they never would have considered on their own.” These attributes are of critical importance, especially in the hyper-partisan, ambivalent-to-the-facts world we currently find ourselves in, and the article says as much.

Unfortunately, it’s becoming more and more difficult to experience the benefits of a liberal arts education at Goucher. Yes, I encounter diverse perspectives and ideas at this school that I may not have, had I studied elsewhere. However, I increasingly fear that the hunger for knowledge and debate outside of student’s preconceived opinions is taking a backseat to the desire for security in beliefs and inclusiveness in discussion. These things are undoubtedly significant; Yale’s Woodward Report and the University of Chicago’s Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression–two campus speech policies held in high esteem–both highlight mutual respect and civility to discussion and inquiry as important to campus life. Yet, both establish them as far removed in importance from unobstructed freedom of expression that does not come into conflict with the law.

As far as this kind of policy goes at Goucher, the closest thing I can find resembling a defense of free expression, is in the academic honor code which states in the first sentence: “At Goucher, we honor freedom of expression, inquiry, and action.” That’s not particularly robust, and puts free speech on no better footing at our school than the provision of a “safe space,” which Goucher’s mission statement sub-heading of Our Commitments to One Another; Communication suggests that we must place a “premium on maintaining.” Regardless of your opinion on the merits of safe spaces, the lack of prioritization of free expression on our campus will lead to more problems than it has already, the foremost of which is the lack of preparedness of our graduates for the outside world. Several teachers I have spoken to over the course of my three years at Goucher will not bring up certain topics in the classroom, or at least will not push these topics too far if they think it will upset our increasingly sensitive student body. While that is understandable, it is doing an absolute disservice to us as students and the blame for this lies at our feet.

Vigorous debate with few boundaries has become less and less common over my time here, only to be replaced with the reassurance that everyone’s opinion will be heard and treated with the same regard, often to go unchallenged, even if it’s clear that those opinions have no real facts behind them. This may go unnoticed by many people, because this security of opinion is comfortable and we don’t often challenge things that make us comfortable. However, the article which President Bowen shared with his Facebook community did not note fostering comfort as one of the jobs of a liberal arts education; it instead emphasized the importance of “setting a framework for inquiry and exchange that will be a resource for graduates for the rest of their lives.” Ultimately, in turbulent times like these when it is most difficult to keep open channels of debate and discussion, that is precisely what we need to do most.

With all of this in mind, I am also processing the heartfelt message the Goucher College community received from President Bowen on Monday, January 30th, concerning several of President Trump’s most recent executive actions. Putting aside all opinions of the executive policies in question, it was reassuring to see President Bowen’s genuine desire to defend and care for all members of our school, especially those who believe that their ability to attend this institution or reside in this country are at jeopardy due to these executive actions. The section of the message, which specifically grabbed my attention, was toward the conclusion:

“To our Muslim students, in particular, we will defend your right to express your religion freely and without fear…I sincerely wish that I could speak on behalf of our entire nation, but at least at Goucher we condemn policies that discriminate based on religion or country of origin and they have no place in our community. We support our government and the legal and peaceful process of passing and enforcing laws, but it is the role of academic institutions—and, indeed, our moral obligation living in a democracy—to voice our objections when we believe injustice is occurring. As an institution of higher education, we will continue to promote the free exchange of ideas among a community of students and scholars that welcomes citizens from around the world.”

I applaud this statement in its entirety and am glad our college has a leader as committed to these ideals as President Bowen is. This statement in its essence is exactly why we need a clearer free speech policy on campus. We need this not just because everyone has a basic right to express themselves however they choose, regardless of what any politician, professor, or peer thinks, but because if we don’t, uninhibited concern with the desire to protect the welfare of marginalized communities will end up having a converse effect and harming everyone—including marginalized communities. Nobody can argue for or represent these communities better than the members themselves, but this is unlikely to occur without the rigorous thinking and debate which college is supposed to be celebrated for cultivating. If Goucher provides students the four-year option of avoiding conflicting opinions in the classroom and protesting speakers they don’t agree with only to retreat to safe spaces after, they are engendering an atmosphere which comes directly into conflict with the core mission of a liberal arts education. Goucher College is doing its entire student body a disservice if it continues to advertise the promise of this school of thought, while inhibiting the catalyst of free speech, which is exactly what makes it so valuable.

Maybe it’s time for Goucher to revisit its policies on free speech and create something for students, instructors, and administrators alike, that recognizes the primacy of free speech as fundamental to intellectual development, and in doing so, simultaneously preserves and enhances the wellbeing of the entire student body.

Sarah Hochberg, Opinion Editor

February 15th, 2017

On January 21st, a day after the Inauguration, I joined the ranks of women from all over the country to march. It was an amazing moment to be a part of, to experience so many people showing up and coming out for a unified cause. While the specific goals of the march were wide and varied, I did have my own set of ideas for why I was marching. My personal agenda was to stand for the rights of all female-identifying people to receive health care in a safe, non-judgmental platform. I believe strongly that women should have rights over their own bodies, and should be able to act as individuals, without government interference that men don’t experience.

Immediately upon exiting the 6 train at 51st street to make my way with a few friends to the march route, I began noticing some traits of the march that surprised me. A lot of signs and slogans were trans-exclusionary, focusing within the gender binary instead of including the range of possible gender identities. Looking around, I saw pockets of women of color but the large majority of marchers were middle class white women, which surprised me in the streets of New York. The general atmosphere seemed odd as well; it had a righteous-yet-festival type of vibe, like an animal rights benefit concert. There were group photo shots and friends gathered, but the march lacked a sense of urgency, a sense of the full weight Trump’s administration and his policies will have groups of underrepresented minorities.

This is not to call out what was one of the largest gatherings of people in my time, nor discredit all the good I believe the Woman’s March did, but rather the complete opposite. This is to call myself out. As I marched with my friends, I noticed I belonged a little too well. I was surrounded by other white, middle-to-upper-class college students. There wasn’t a fear of authority, or a real sense of resistance. We were a collection of, largely, young adults who joined because we share a hatred of Trump but only a vague notion of how to turn that into a constructive resistance of the administration’s policies. The Woman’s March, which was a wonderful, beautiful and empowering experience shared by women across the country, did not include as many women of color as it could have, making it a movement I had mixed feelings about joining.

In a political climate where every major decision feels like a backwards step for the country I love so much, acts like calling my representatives, sending postcards (courtesy of Roosevelt Institute at Goucher) and volunteering at local organizations whenever possible feel like I’m making a tangible effort to oppose the government in the only ways I know how. But within the paradox of white activism, I’m unsure of my place in a march or protest. I want my feminism to be intersectional, and my activism to be inclusive, but I’m unsure how to use my white privilege in a way that doesn’t take away someone’s voice. As a white privileged college student, I want to participate without dominating a space.