The independent student newspaper at Goucher College

Category archive

Opinion - page 7

Goucher’s Administration is Overlooking the Issues Black and Brown Students Face (Opinion)

by

President Kent Devereaux issued a lengthy email on October 26 in response to a national rise in antisemitism and anti-Jewish hate crimes. As most students know, President Devereaux’s most frequent mode of contact with students is through email, and the occasional decision to eat in the dining hall with other administrators to directly connect with the students he claims to care for and support. 

My main gripe with these emails is the blatant silence from President Devereaux on political issues that directly impact other minority students at Goucher, particularly the non-Jewish Black and Brown community.

In an email sent out to the Goucher community on September 26 regarding an accidental scheduling conflict that landed on Yom Kippur, President Devereaux profusely apologizes for the mistake stating: “As we strive to be a more inclusive and welcoming community, on occasion we will make mistakes. When that happens, it is incumbent upon all of us to recognize our errors, offer an apology, and learn from our errors so we don’t make the same mistake again.” 

Yet he fails to ever mention other religious holidays that many students of color celebrate, such as Ramadan and Diwali. These holidays are not scheduled around to accommodate those who practice– where is our apology?

He then states in an additional email regarding diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice goals from September 28: “We have filed legal actions seeking to correct past injustices, such as removing the racist and antisemitic covenants present in the original deeds for the land upon which the College sits today. We launched a multi-year initiative — the Hallowed Ground Project — to examine the written and archeological evidence of the practice of slavery that occurred on this land, long before the College acquired it in the early 20th century.” 

Both of these emails strive to acknowledge injustices in the Jewish community, and loosely address additional issues applying to other minority groups. We then get a quick look at the Hallowed Ground Project, but no other statement in these emails on specific social justice problems address other national or global atrocities that impact Black and Brown people. It is rare that these instances even get an email. 

Lastly, President Devereaux’s email from October 26– “Standing against hate and antisemitism.” 

“Goucher is not perfect. No institution, or human, ever is, but we are proud of that history and our longstanding commitment to creating a welcoming and inclusive campus for all,” he said, “We have been proactive in working collaboratively with Hillel International’s Campus Climate Initiative to assess and improve the campus climate for our Jewish community members. Moving forward, we will continue to work on training, policies, and community dialogue to actively combat antisemitism in all its forms across all domains of our campus community.”

Let me be clear, his ability to take a forthcoming stance against antisemitism is crucial and admirable. But this fails to be as inclusive as he may have intended. As a current Black Muslim student at Goucher, I personally do not feel that issues that my community faces are being considered at all in some of these emails. In fact, it feels as if we are ignoring whole communities.  

Students who observe Ramadan have complained about the dining hall closing at 8pm when they are expected to have broken their fast by or around sundown after the dining hall closes. They have no option for a dining hall meal unless they come earlier in the day to get food to-go. The human rights violations against Palestinians have been completely ignored, while when Ukraine was invaded, their flag was flying on campus shortly after. 

I am not saying that one oppressed group should be valued over the other, or that the issues President Deveraux and the college have touched on are unimportant. My criticism here is that you cannot pick and choose when and who you care about, especially as a president of an institution filled with students who carry a global array of identities. We exist and study here, whether you would like to acknowledge it or not. 

For years now, it is no surprise that Goucher students of color feel as if their presence is only seen through the diversity photoshoots taken for the Goucher website. We are human advertisements to help promote an inclusive space that does not exist. But how can we tackle this problem when the people who run this institution ignore our existence until it benefits their agenda? It is worth confronting this issue, as well as being honest about how we as Goucher students have the capacity to spark change. We must acknowledge the power we hold through our numbers and voices when it comes to issues that personally affect us at this institution. I urge us to have these essential conversations with each other about what we truly deserve at a college we sacrifice so much to be part of. Hold those directly in power and in control of our Goucher livelihoods accountable. We deserve to know we matter.

Written By Maryam Abdiruhman ’24

You might be interested in

Goucher Unmasked: The Implications of Dropping the Mask Mandate (Opinion)

by

Since the pandemic began in 2019, it has been made very clear how selfish people can be when it comes to preserving the health of those around them. It is evident that those who pushed against the health and safety guidelines before the mask mandate was lifted disregard the well-being of immunocompromised people. 

Recently, the decision was made for Goucher to become mask-optional. But is this decision really for the best? Lifting the masking requirement after spring break last semester led to a spike in Covid cases on campus and resulted in the mandate being reinstated. As an immunocompromised student, it doesn’t feel like a very thoughtful decision. 

While it is understandable why many people do not want to keep wearing masks all the time, it does not make it safe. This decision is especially impactful on those who wish to maintain social distancing but cannot in common spaces such as the dining hall and classrooms. Goucher is a private institution and may follow Covid guidelines that are more cautious than state and local decisions. 

While there may be a few student members on the Goucher Covid Task Force, a larger survey of the community could have given a fuller picture of the preferences for guidelines, especially since masking is so politicized. This also could have given a larger window of time for students, faculty and staff to prepare. 

This institution claims to uphold the idea of community as one of their core values, but this decision clearly wasn’t made with this value in mind. America’s decision to act as if the pandemic is over simply because they do not feel like taking the necessary precautions anymore does not lessen the risk. It is still possible to contract long Covid regardless of vaccination status. 

As the weather cools and more people begin to spend time indoors, a new Covid surge is more than likely to hit campus, making masking more important. Just over a month ago, a new highly-contagious Covid variant, BQ.1 was discovered. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that BQ.1 has now grown to make up over 10% of new infections across the country. 

With the new variant, weather changes, and community care in mind, please consider masking up. If you choose to not wear a mask, please try to maintain social distance from others. KN95 masks can be found across campus in various locations including, but not limited to, the Office of Student Engagement, Mary Fisher Dining, and the Office of Residential Life.

By Dom McKinney ’23

Photos of Goucher’s forgotten “please don’t forget your mask” signs by Amita Chatterjee for the Quindecim

You might be interested in

“LAUNCH Program” Fizzles at Lift-Off

by

Two weeks before the fall semester started, 33 first year students arrived at Goucher for the “Summer Launch Program.” The Summer LAUNCH Program is a refined form of previous programs such as the Phoenix Program., Goucher worked with the Maryland Scholars Association and others to create the LAUNCH program to better equip first-generation and underprivileged college students for the Goucher experience. “We recognize that not everyone comes to college on an equal footing.” says the LAUNCH page under the Goucher Website. “The LAUNCH Network supports students who may face unique challenges and ensure that they can access the resources necessary to flourish at Goucher.” But while the Goucher faculty aimed for the LAUNCH program to help give students who needed a leg-up, it floundered due to poor communication, lack of preparation, and questionable decision making on demographics.

“We weren’t told anything about the program prior,” says first-year student Heather McCormack ’25. “I was required to go for my scholarship, and I wasn’t expecting to be in classes everyday.” As a beneficiary of the Maryland Scholar Program, Heather attended LAUNCH as part of her scholarship; .But as she said, the program’s schedule was ill-communicated.

The emails regarding the program describe it as an opportunity to “[m]ove in two weeks early…develop skills through curricular and co-curricular courses…[and] enjoy exclusive social excursions.” However, certain aspects were far more central to the program than others.Over the course of two weeks there were only four total outings, only one of which was actually in Baltimore proper. The days were otherwise spent in classes; from 9 AM to 3 PM, students were shuffled between ACE time management workshops, remedial math classes, and high-school level English courses. This was felt as a slap in the face to many students; the insinuation that students on financial aid needed academic remediation was seen by many as insulting and even classist.

This was made further problematic when a few students realized that they didn’t fit into the categories that the LAUNCH Program was meant to address. Some students, such as freshman Cas Sturdivant ’25, who is Black, felt like there was another reason for his inclusion. 

“My family has never struggled with money, and both of my parents are college educated. I didn’t even qualify for financial aid. I’m a fourth generation college student. I can’t think of a reason other than my race that could explain why I was contacted for the LAUNCH program.” 

Cas’ beliefs were echoed by other students in the LAUNCH program – whatever Goucher’s original purpose for including otherwise well-off students of color, it did not have the effect they intended. The Summer LAUNCH Program was without a doubt a well-intentioned project, but it left many students feeling further uncertain of their place at Goucher College. While it was certainly meant to help, it seems the program never managed to get off the LAUNCHpad.

Duped by the Dining Hall

by

Written By: Karen O’Brien

In 2016, Goucher’s on-campus dining options were named the Twentieth Best by The Princeton Review. This is a fact that the college loves to cite, talking about it on tours, websites, and pamphlets alike. When taking my own tour of the campus back in 2019, my tour guide mentioned this accolade more than once as we walked through the multiple levels of Mary Fisher. However, does Goucher’s food service continue to measure up to the standards that got it nominated by The Princeton Review, or is it living on a past reputation? 

Walking into the dining hall for the first time, whether that be on a tour or on the first day of school, the facility looks impressive. Even once you sit down to eat, it’s difficult not to admit that the food could be worse. However, after you come back day after day, and are presented with many of the same options as you were the day before, the sparkle of the white-tiled counters is easily dimmed. Though on their website Goucher highlights their plethora of dining options, this appears to be more about marketing to prospective students, and less about providing quality choices for the students who are already enrolled. 

While options are already a problem for students with no dietary restrictions, students who do have restrictions have an even more difficult time finding things to eat. While Goucher claims to have sufficient choices for students who are vegetarian, vegan, kosher, etc., the reality once again does not live up to the expectations. The kosher station has been inconsistently open. A student may be able to have a kosher meal for lunch, but then find the station to be closed for dinner. Additionally, students have had trouble finding out if foods even fit their dietary needs at all.

Freshman Briana Gales ‘25 recalls how, on the very first day, she ate at the dining hall and became extremely sick after eating a vegan burger that she didn’t expect to have gluten in it. Another freshman, Sophia Travis ‘25 has had many similar experiences due to an allergy to eggs. She calls for all dishes to be labeled so as to easily avoid these situations. 

“Bon Appétit… needs to make a greater effort for students with food allergies and sensitivities by labeling the dishes both in-person and online with icons for the top eight allergens.” 

Travis, as well as many other students, believe that if allergens were to be consistently and properly labeled, many students would be saved from nights of illness due to eating in the school’s dining hall. 

Other schools in the area have already implemented similar policies. Notre Dame of Maryland, another small, liberal arts school located in the Baltimore area, labels all of their dishes with the eight major allergens. They also provide students with an emailed weekly menu that details these allergens.

My question to our school and food providers is this: will you continue to live off of the glory awarded to you five years ago, or will you make efforts to change the problems every student faces and try for a number one spot on that list?

In Search of a More Ethical Snack: Goucher Should Divest from Harmful Food and Drink Vendors

by

Written By: Eva Schussel

Goucher College is an institution that prides itself on ethical principles within a social justice framework. This is what we are told, and the reason that many of us chose to come here. At times, though, this selling point begins to feel facetious. If we are to pride ourselves on solidarity with marginalized groups, we must stand for the rights of the working class. One place where this issue shines is in the snacks and drinks provided on campus. PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Kellogg… These megacorporations have shown time and time again that they care not for the rights and wellbeing of their workers and consumers, only for their bottom line. 

Workers at Frito-Lay (a subsidiary of PepsiCo) for example, went on strike because of the pitiful pay, lack of mobility, and, as one worker reported to Vice Magazine, “[…Many] people have had heart attacks in the heat at Frito-Lay since I’ve been here. One guy died a few years ago and the company had people pick him up, move him over to the side, and put another person in his spot without shutting the business down for two seconds.” 

One of Nestlé’s most notable and horrifying scandals took place in South Africa in the 1970’s when they provided baby formula to nursing mothers, using the white-supremacist, capitalistic rhetoric that it was more civilised than breastfeeding, giving it away for free until the mothers were no longer producing milk, then jacked up the prices, affectively starving the children of the women who couldn’t afford it, but now needed it. The formula also lacked essential nutrients that help infants develop properly, leading to many children growing up without sufficient protein buildup, thus affecting their development. 

More recently, Nestlé has been trying to buy up public sources of freshwater for their own bottling. Water is an essential resource and a human right, and this shows clearly how completely morally bankrupt this company is. Why then, is our school, which reports such a high standard, supporting these brands? Surely it can’t be too difficult to find other, equally good sodas, chips, and cereals to feed our students. Surely we could take this small step to show that we don’t support these atrocities. Couldn’t we?

Goucher Reacts to the 2020 Presidential Election

by

By Jibril Howard ’22

Three days on from the 2020 Presidential Election and it’s only just now that the picture becomes clearer on who will be elected President of the United States. At the time of writing, the Democratic nominee, former Vice-President Joe Biden sits on 253 confirmed Electoral College votes. Many news organizations, including MSNBC and Fox News have projected Biden winning other states, although vote counting continues in Nevada, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Alaska and North Carolina. Incumbent Republican President Donald Trump has amassed only 214 votes.

Despite the ongoing vote count, Biden looks set to win Arizona and Pennsylvania (11 and 20 electoral college votes respectively) and remains competitive in Nevada and Georgia. Regardless of the final Electoral College breakdown, Biden has won the popular vote by almost 4 million votes more than Trump and, with an ongoing vote total exceeding 71 million, received more votes than any other US presidential candidate in history. Throughout the election Trump has lambasted efforts to count mail-in votes and stir false claims of voter fraud. Speaking at a press conference the evening of November 6th, Trump accused Democrats of stealing the election and sought to sow doubts about the integrity of the election. The speech was widely derided as authoritarian with many major news networks cutting away mid-broadcast.

Despite the seemingly rosy picture at the top of the ticket, Democrats suffered surprising losses in down-ballot races: failing to make gains in rural and exurban districts, losing six seats in the House of Representatives, and failing to take back control of the Senate, despite massive fundraising hauls on candidates running in South Carolina, Kentucky, Iowa, Kansas, and Maine. However, control of the Senate does remain in play as the candidates in the Georgia regular and special senate races failed to clear 50 percent thresholds, triggering automatic January runoffs. Additionally, vote counts remain ongoing to determine the winner of the Alaska Senate race.

Nevertheless, the House and Senate losses overall will prompt concern and rancor among Democratic lawmakers over the direction and strategy of the party moving forward, especially in messaging and outreach to growing Hispanic/Latinx communities and continuing to speak to and address the needs of Black communities across the country. In-fighting has already begun between moderates such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) against progressives such as Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).

Naturally, the Goucher community is not estranged from the political atmosphere. While existing in an online space due to the ongoing mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic by President Trump, the rights of LGBTQIA+ students and the right to abortion for thousands of people with uteruses remain at the whim of a conservative Supreme Court, leaving many Goucher students with liberal political perspectives nervously waiting for a Biden victory. I collected some reactions from a quick convenience sample of Goucher students. Here are their collected thoughts and responses to the 2020 Presidential Election.

Junior and former Quindecim copyeditor Steven Van Riper ’22 in a group message text exchange explained his reaction succinctly “AAAAAAAAAAA!”

Fellow junior Kayla Thomas ’22 provided a lengthier reaction to the election. “I can give [my reaction] to you in one word: anxiety. I’m trying my hardest to remain hopefully cautious. I remember four years ago that all politics were progressive and left-leaning and I was hurt when Trump won. I hope that I can be proven right this time.”

In an exchange via Instagram DMs senior Casey Braun ’21 was also nervous about the result of the election.

“I would say I’m cautiously optimistic [about Joe Biden winning] especially regarding Pennsylvania. I think it has a chance to go blue, but it would very close, so I don’t want to jinx it!” Regarding President Trump’s false claims of election rigging Braun replied: “Also our President doesn’t understand what a democracy is…”

Another junior Alex Riefe ’22 remarked on the endurance of President Trump’s ideas.

“…it’s been eye-opening to look at a physical map of the United States and see how these ideas that Trump has pushed, in denying science and facts and subverting democracy, have taken root. This is the most important election I’ve lived through in that for the first time our democracy and way we choose to govern our country is being challenged.”

First-year Andrea Casique ’24 took an international perspective via Instagram DMs.

“As a Venezuelan, I grew up watching crazy elections and being constantly terrified by the government, so I never really thought an American Presidential election could be this terrifying. I’m enjoying the memes and TikToks [about the election] though – it’s the only thing keeping me from losing it.”

Quindecim staff writer and first-year Mich Rouse ’24 reflected in an email on the unexpectedly competitive races in Republican-stronghold southern states:

“Some people in [majority-blue] states poke fun of the South because they’re not the same as them. What they don’t recognize is that by doing this, they’re erasing the work of southern BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, & People of Color] organizers who have been pushing for transformation since the beginning. As an organizer myself in North Carolina – and we all see how my state is doing right now – I’m just constantly frustrated. The Biden/Harris ticket is not what I personally wanted, but I pushed extensively to make it a reality, and I hope these efforts don’t go under the rug.”

Sophomore Whittaker Miller ’23 gave a scathing indictment of the US political process.

“Waking up and seeing the millions of votes for the man who embodies the white supremacist and oppressive ideals of this nation is a gut-sinking feeling I should have seen coming. 50 million people chanting ‘All Lives Matter’ while simultaneously deciding that the 200,000 that have died [from the Covid-19 pandemic] at the hands of this man and virus don’t matter. As I continue in my career in academia as well as community building in my hometown where I will be for as long as this pandemic persists, I have come to realize that all of this is intentional – the division, the defunding of education, the propaganda, and the eventual fall of America into complete fascism as my friends and I watch weeping at the thought that what little rights and hope we have lies in the hands of the ancient electoral college established 300 years ago. Biden is nowhere near what we need [for this political moment] and we only have so much time left.”

Quindecim Co-Editor-in-Chief Neve Levinson ‘21 argued in a similar vein:

“Our electoral system is rooted in white supremacy. As BIPOC activists have said for generations, we have to fundamentally change our systems in order to truly value life. [Scholar and activist] Ijeoma Oluo condensed this message when she tweeted on Thursday, “This election doesn’t change the work we need to do, it just determines how much harder that work may be.” All the available data show in no uncertain terms that white folks, and especially white women, have decolonizing work to do in the political sphere. We have dinner conversations to have and silences to break. This week has sucked.”

However, they ended with a piece of positive advice for folks as the election rolls on: “Take a nap, drink some water, and invest in community.”

Electoral College Map as of November 6th. PC: ABC7 News San Francisco

Spring Reopening: What to Think?

by

By Nicholas Enoch ’23

With less than four weeks left in the semester, speculations on what the Spring 2021 semester will look like and whether we will be coming back to campus is still up in the air, which is leaving students confused and in the dark about what to expect. During the current Fall 2020 semester, only students who fit certain criteria could come onto campus and as a result less than 10 percent of the undergraduate population is currently living on-campus. Due to the ongoing success preventing an outbreak of Covid-19 cases on campus, Goucher has decided to allow at least 700 students to come onto campus in the spring and is promoting the rollout of hy-flex [hybrid online and in-person] courses. However the response to the news has been mixed at best.

Sophomore Anna Williams ‘23, who currently lives on campus, expressed concern that allowing a large amount of students back can create more problems:

“I am concerned that if we do come back, then we will get shut down again and will hurt the students who need campus housing like myself.”

In a recent email by Student Success, students who apply for on-campus housing are subject to a system of prioritization which is ordered as follows: first-year students, student-athletes, sophomore students, non-athlete seniors, non-athlete juniors, and then students currently residing less than 25 miles from campus placed last. This priority list has garnered frustration to juniors and seniors who are in need of campus housing, as they are the least priority and may not receiving housing, even if they apply for it. Following the email, students took to the Gopher app to express outrage and vent over the prioritization of on-campus housing, especially the perception of leaving juniors and seniors out in the cold.

Sophomore Tara Abdullah Nri ’23 said, “I do find it weird that sophomores are being prioritized over seniors as a sophomore myself.”

Junior Sarah Ohana ‘22, a biology major, also noted that some of her classes would require her to be on campus for some of her classes:

“My major and minor are very intense and they require many classes that I’ll need to take one after the other or else I will be behind in my graduating requirements, which is not my goal to be behind in at all. I was told that possibly one of my science classes will have a mandatory lab in person requirement and if that is the case, then I will have to live on campus or close to campus most likely.”

Not only has the priority list have received criticism, the level of safety and enforcement of CDC guidelines such as social distancing and staying 6 feet apart has received mixed reaction. In an email by the Spring Reopening Task Force, it is stated that each resident on campus will be living in single rooms.

First-year Autumn Custis ‘24, who currently resides on campus, believes that Goucher will be able to follow CDC guidelines: “I feel very comfortable with coming back to campus because of the frequent testing and mask regulations they put in place.”

However, students who are currently not on campus, like junior Quinn Tran ‘22, feel otherwise about returning to campus: “I don’t want something like Fall happened when they said to reopen, [sic] yet they moved online. Will they assure us that this won’t happen again?”

Abdullah Nri also spoke about returning to campus:

“I feel like there’s a good chance that there will be a breakout on campus which would be risky for the whole population and in that case I wouldn’t be able to go home because my parents are both in the at-risk category in multiple ways and I wouldn’t want to risk it.

From reading the emails and speaking with students both on and off campus, my opinion on students coming back to campus is up in the air. I do feel that the priority list of students that should come back should be changed or revised to acknowledge students who need housing. Also, there is a reoccurring pattern that what happened last Spring and this Fall will happen again, and I myself fear that too, being a first-year who needs campus housing. My hope, like most if not all of the students, is that Goucher makes a decision and stands by their choice instead of committing and then backing off. With coronavirus cases rising all across the country, my biggest fear is coming on to campus and then in a matter of weeks having to leave. With the Spring 2021 semester still looking up in the air, who knows what kind of semester we will all be walking into when classes start in February.

A lonely Welsh Hall. PC: Nicholas Enoch ’23

Comedy, Tragedy, and “Conan O’Brien Needs a Friend”

by

By Madeline Tredway ’24

I don’t think there’s anything I could say about the 2020 pandemic that hasn’t been done to death. Loneliness, existential doom, constant fear, Animal Crossing — it’s all been reiterated over and over in so many different ways, to the point where it doesn’t really mean much anymore. However, when you look closer at what is being said, it seems like all the poetry, the articles, and Instagram stories practice what is becoming so common among people: stating what they’re feeling in a clinical manner, but refusing to be truly honest in fear of other people’s reactions. “I’m feeling sad and lonely today, but I’ll just post a picture of my friends and I hanging out from three months ago so I don’t seem too sad and lonely.” “Fear is hard to manage in these times, but let me make a joke so I don’t look like I’m really upset about the situation.” 

Conan O’Brien hosts the TBS talk show Conan. PC: NPR

All of these are completely understandable reactions to the different things we’re all suffering from right now, but as a person who leans into hardship for better or for worse, it’s isolating to feel like you’re going through such awful things alone and to know that the problem might be alleviated if we all weren’t so scared of intimacy. So who do I, a female college student, look to for this gritty, heartbreakingly real depiction of reality I so desire? None other than Conan O’ Brien. 

O’Brien’s podcast “Conan O’ Brien Needs a Friend” started in late 2018 and was met by praise from critics and listeners alike. O’Brien, who is the longest-running current talk show host with 26 years under his belt, is truly one of a kind—he’s generally adored by his cult following, and has a strange sense of humor that comes off as refreshingly different from a lot of talk show hosts. So to hear that Conan O’ Brien was starting a podcast was great news for many, especially since he was allowed to choose his own guests, read his own ads instead of going to a commercial break, and potentially cut through the Hollywoodisms that plague talk shows. Its success seemed inevitable.

Now that the podcast has been active for a few years, it is safe to say it lived up to its prospects. Its gimmick is that Conan’s only friends are his staffers, therefore he is in desperate need of new friends, hence the “needs a friend” part of the title. It’s simple enough to work with the freeform discussions on the show and also meshes well with his self deprecating humor. In fact, his style of comedy works well with the somewhat straightforward structure of the podcast — each episode begins with a little bit of banter with his assistant Sona Movsesian (media personality from O’Brien’s television show) and producer Matt Gourley (a podcast legend in many circles), then the actual interview, and finishes with closing banter with Movsesian and Gourley. Sprinkle a few ads in between, and that’s the entirety of the podcast. But O’Brien’s humor is intelligent and weird, at times even being nonsensical, so the podcast is never boring. Even with guests that aren’t known for comedic prowess, notably J.J. Abrams and Michelle Obama, O’Brien coaxes the humor out of discussions of movie-making and politics. With a perfect host & structure, along with producer Gourley who edits masterfully to make cuts seem unawkward, this podcast is genuinely well-made.

Although “Conan O’Brien Needs a Friend” is wonderfully funny, this alone is not what makes it unique. Other podcasts like “My Brother, My Brother, and Me” and “Comedy Bang! Bang!” are among my favorites that make me laugh just as much as O’Brien does, but I keep coming back to “Conan O’Brien” for re-listens more than I do the others. So what is it about the podcast that makes it so special? The short answer is truth.

On Nikki Glaser’s episode, Glaser speaks openly and honestly about her eating disorder and how it affected her self-image throughout high school and college, and still affects her eating habits today. She remarks that she thinks her disorder was her way of wanting to die, and although she isn’t tearing up when saying this, it’s understood that this was a pivotal point in the comedian’s life. It’s a very tense moment, and for the listener, the obvious context of this being a comedy show is more apparent than ever. A lot of podcast hosts express their want for the guests on their podcasts to feel comfortable talking about “anything and everything,” but I’ve noticed that in a lot of these podcasts, as soon as that “anything and everything” comes to something serious, the hosts don’t know how to handle it. They either make a joke and move on, or stay so silent that the guest doesn’t feel comfortable talking about it anymore. It’s immediately obvious that the promise at the beginning of the show isn’t able to be fulfilled, because for a lot of people, that kind of confidentiality about somber topics is uncomfortable. But with O’Brien, he asks questions about her experience and comments on it truthfully, telling her he hates hearing about her being in that kind of pain, not shying away from the emotional implication his honesty carries. 

I mentioned earlier that O’Brien’s humor is refreshing, and since listening to the podcast, I’ve learned his honesty is also refreshing, especially recently. The pandemic has really amplified the tendency of people to hide from veracity when it relates to suffering. It’s too much for a lot of people to be honest about mental health during the pandemic (and honesty does not mean making a joke about your loneliness that’s veiled under five layers of irony). Yes, comedy is healing, but people like O’Brien understand that it is not simply a shield. Talking to people and sharing experiences is one of the only means of connection we have right now, and I’m afraid that connection is becoming severed as people use humor to fortify their own walls. It is absolutely true, however, that comedy and candidness are not completely separate, but burying serious things under humor is not combining the two. It’s only isolating humor and causing others to feel as if confidentiality is not welcome. 

For instance, after Glaser confides in Conan about her eating disorder, Conan makes a comment about how a lot of comedians weren’t the class clowns in high school, and instead the kids people remember as being incredibly serious. He quips that the class clowns often died in motel shootouts. This joke is funny, but saying this doesn’t detract from Glaser’s intimacy, and doesn’t serve just to move past it. He acknowledges Glaser’s suffering and by making this joke, he’s not making light of it—he’s trying to alleviate just a little bit of sorrow. This is truly combining comedy and candidness.

At the beginning of one of the podcast episodes, O’Brien talks briefly about the pandemic. He speaks of his sadness at seeing young people accepting that this is their new reality, and says that he’s confident that science will come in to save the day; we will live to see another unexpected pandemic to seize upon us! That made me laugh, but it also assuaged so much of the stress and fear I had been feeling at the time. It’s the most honest and human response to the pandemic I’ve heard from a comedian, and it’s moments like those that make me realize why I listen to this podcast over and over again: O’Brien truly understands the adjacent relationship between comedy and tragedy.

Conan O’Brien Needs a Friend. PC: Earwolf.com

Lebron James vs. Michael Jordan: Just Enjoy the Show

by

By Alex Dominguez ’24

With the Los Angeles Lakers blowing out the Miami Heat yet again in Game Two of the 2020 NBA Finals, it seems inevitable that Lebron James and company are going to win this year’s championship. With Lebron just adding to his resume season after season, the debate over who is the greatest, King James or his airness Michael Jordan, only gets more intense year after year. I am here to say it does not matter. 

Let me start by saying I love Michael Jordan. My dad was around my age when Jordan won his first of many championships. By then, he, like millions of others, were deeply obsessed with the Chicago Bulls star. My dad passed on this love for Michael Jordan to me. Instead of growing up listening to fairy tales, my dad and I used to watch old Bulls games and I would listen to insane stories from Jordan’s prime. From growing up listening to my dad tell tales of how effortlessly MJ appeared to fly to watching his airness myself in the 2020 documentary series “The Last Dance”, Michael Jordan played a huge role in my early childhood. 

During this same time, Lebron James was still trying to claim his spot as a top player in the NBA. Right around the time I started watching sports religiously, Lebron was propelled to superstar status. I was fortunate enough to understand the cult of personality surrounding Michael Jordan, while also witnessing the transition of Lebron from a young and hungry star to one of the greatest to ever dribble a basketball.

Jordan created the greatest NBA resume to date, and Lebron seems to be chipping away at that every single season. This has created an immense amount of debate and discussion on who is truly the greatest player ever, Jordan, or Lebron. From it being a recurring topic in my podcast, “The Talking Ball,” to my uncle asking me every holiday dinner who is the better player, this question has followed me ever since the 2016 NBA championship. However, only mentioning the two in the same sentence to compare them undervalues the respective accomplishments both have achieved and ignores the main reason they are compared: their greatness. 

Each generation in pop culture has its own heroes. As time passes, certain styles and sounds grow and lose popularity. The world of sports is no different. As the changing of the guard occurs in basketball, different play styles and strategies change. Due to the competitive nature of sports, nothing is static. Athletes across all sports, but basketball in particular should be compared with respect to the era they played in, not the current era. 

By comparing players to the current era, fans misinterpret all that made certain athletes great. It is unfair to compare Jordan’s three-point shot to Stephen Curry’s or Lebron’s shot because that was not an aspect of his game that he was expected to rely heavily on. Furthermore, you cannot argue that Lebron is less than Jordan because he does not get bruised and assaulted every time he tries to score as Jordan did in his early playoff runs. We can only speculate how Lebron would react to Dennis Rodman trying to wrestle mid-game, and whether Jordan would be able to pull up from half-court and sink a shot. However, there is no doubting the heights both were able to reach throughout their respective careers.

This comparison is also not like comparing apples to oranges either. Instead, it is like comparing Ford automobiles with two different goals in mind. A 1966 Ford GT is incomparable to a Ford Focus for several reasons, but most of all because they served vastly different purposes. When engineers designed the GT, their goal was to create the fastest vehicle to ever grace the planet. The Ford Focus on the other hand was designed to focus on vastly different features of an automobile. Milage, safety, speed: these are differentiating factors, but help illustrate the successes behind the cars. 

Another reason why this argument is a distraction from enjoying the game of basketball is that it does not offer anything new. During the 1960s and 70s, similar arguments were made between players like Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell. As time passed, those names became replaced with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar vs Moses Malone, then Larry Bird vs Magic Johnson to now Michael Jordan and Lebron James. These name changes over time illustrate how nothing in sports is permanent. If the arguments made during the 1960s or 70s amounted to anything NBA fans would be comparing Bob Cousy to the current best point guard in the league, but they do not. This is because the significance and status of a player is fluid. Just like these stars play basketball, our perception of players is sensational. If a shooting guard plans to pass the ball but sees an opening for a clean shot, his plans change, much like how our opinions change when the situation changes. Since each period of basketball focuses on different aspects of the game, the fans of each period admire those skills highlighted in that period. A lot of Jordan’s contemporaries go on ESPN and constantly bash small ball offenses much like current players hate the rugged fouls of the 80s. As times change and practices shift, so do the values we worship. If the arguments of the past have taught us anything, it is that there is no right answer, just what you enjoy more. 

This conversation of the highest-ranking basketball player ever tends to get the world’s greatest and best thrown around a lot, but the definition of these words has become looser and looser. Jordan had weak points in his game that are only becoming more prominent as time goes on. While he was widely considered the greatest scorer ever, this title is becoming more contested. The greatest to wear a Bulls jersey relied heavily on mid-range jump shots and driving to the hoop, two weapons that are decreasing in popularity among players in his position. With the dominance and efficiency of the three-point shot and small ball movement, Jordan’s game would be hard to manifest his style of play as successfully. This is not as much as a penalty for Jordan’s play as much as it is as a testament on how much sports change across only a couple of generations. While Jordan’s scoring arsenal is among the best in history and his defensive skills rank among the best, with a faster pace of the game and the rise of more efficient offensive strategies, each new generation’s best proves more and more effective than Jordan.

Regardless of who you think is the better player, there is no definitive way to prove it. Even his airness himself is hesitant to say he is the greatest despite being the competitive freak of nature he is. This polarizing conversation is drawn by generational lines, with “old heads” citing Jordan as basketball’s god and the youth claiming Lebron James as king of basketball history. It is only a matter of time until I watch Bronny win his first MVP as my son tells me Lebron would never be able to dominate in this era. So instead of arguing over 0.6 of a percentage, it is time to put down the pitchforks, pick up the remote, and just witness greatness.

Michael Jordan (left) and Lebron James in 2014. PC: The Charlotte Observer via The Guardian

Works Cited:

“LeBron James Stats.” Basketball,  https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html.

“LeBron James’ Career Timeline.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 2 July 2018, www.latimes.com/sports/nba/la-sp-lakers-lebron-timeline-20180701-story.html. “Michael Jordan Stats.” Basketball, www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html. 

“Three-Point Progression.” NBA Math, 6 Aug. 2018, nbamath.com/three-point-progression/.

We Need to Rethink GSG Senate

by
GSG 2019 Senate Silly Group Photo

If you’re a politically- or activist-minded first-year student arriving at Goucher, there aren’t very many obvious ways to get engaged. You barely know anybody beyond your immediate group of friends, you’re just starting to know a few professors, and the only two clubs that seem remotely political in nature are Model Senate and Model United Nations. After two months of not knowing anybody but with a thirst to create “change,” I was eager to run for the Goucher Student Government (GSG) Senate when flyers advertising GSG senate elections popped up across campus even though I had only a small grasp of the issues that affected the Goucher student community. I wasn’t the only one running: there were seven other first-years running for Senate besides me, including current GSG Co-Presidents Yuchen Ding ’22 and Derrick Burnette ’22 and current senator Alistair Watson ’22.

However, by the time elections came around my sophomore year next year only Watson chose to run for re-election as Burnette and Ding stepped up to run for Co-President. I myself chose not to run for re-election, instead devoting my full-time energy into writing for The Q. This is emblematic of a further trend where upperclassmen increasingly choose not to run, instead pushing their activism and political engagement through alternative channels. As a result, GSG remains overwhelmingly dominated by first-years and new sophomore senators while juniors and seniors are typically underrepresented.

You can chalk up the lack of juniors and seniors down to a couple different plausible answers: they have more work and studying to do, most choose this timeframe to study abroad, and people naturally change their interests as time moves on. These answers are, in whole or in part, correct. However, there is another reason which I’m going to explore: the GSG Senate is simply an ineffective and redundant institution for governance.

While the idea that GSG is broken isn’t new – sometimes it feels like an open secret – the question “why is GSG ineffective?” has a few different, related answers. To explore this, I will break it down into two related but distinct categories: one-part identity and one-part structure.

The first part, concerning identity, was succinctly summarized to me by a professor the first semester of my sophomore year: “GSG has never figured out what it means or what it does.” The GSG Senate Constitution preamble states that it serves as a “…coordinator of student activities and an advocate for student interests, promoting an open and equitable dialogue among the student body, alumnae/i, faculty, staff, administration, and trustees.” Elsewhere on the GSG website a blurb mentions:

Goucher Student Government works to bring students into conversation with administrative decisions, and to build long term relationships with administrators in order to ensure students’ role in the decision-making process.

In other words, the responsibility for a GSG Senator is to advocate for student interests when speaking to faculty, administration, and staff. However, the vagueness of this role is presented as an opportunity – “you can make this role into whatever you want!!” as a senator once told me when I was first elected – but in reality this creates a situation where most senators have little idea of their responsibilities or how to “advocate for student interests” and promote “an open and equitable dialogue.” This is especially problematic for first-year senators who are thrown into GSG who must simultaneously “make” their job as a senator and learn the community they are serving. After one year as a GSG senator the only concrete power I found that GSG has (which it uses repeatedly) is their campus-wide email which Senate can use to “stand in solidarity” with clubs on certain issues such as the #GoucherBlackOut or to ask for students to serve on administration committees.

This brings me to my next point: structure. Many of the issues I faced as a senator revolved around the structure. GSG runs according to a constitution which mandates bi-monthly meetings during which you can pass resolutions by a ¾ majority vote so long as you have a quorum (a minimum attendance). However, throughout my time as a senator we could never pass resolutions because there was never quorum and we could never impeach absentee senators for the same reason. It was a bureaucratic nightmare. The other issue we faced is that resolutions passed by GSG have no method of enforcement. They are simply symbolic. All of this is even before we talk about senate committees, an ongoing fight between senators over whether they’re necessary (they’re not) which is held every year and usually ends with yelling and hurt feelings. True to form, the debate was held again this past Tuesday during the first-of-the-year GSG session and once again there was bickering.

Now if you’ve made it to the end, you might be asking yourself, “Well Jibril, why don’t you run? You know all the issues. You can fix it.” My response is I’m simply not interested nor do I have the mental bandwidth to oversee a wholesale constitutional rewrite. Instead, I’m writing this opinion piece as both a way of providing information to any future students who currently are contemplating a senate run and as a call to action. Senate is dysfunctional but the problems are not unresolvable. In the meantime there are other organizations who are taking action such as Goucher Consent Coalition (GCC), Goucher Black Student Union (GBSU), and Goucher Student Union who have all organized and taken direct action on behalf of students to raise awareness and address issues of campus rape culture, ongoing anti-Black racism and lack of representation, GardaWorld, and cuts to faculty and staff. And of course, every day students do their own self-advocacy on an individual basis, reaching out to faculty, staff, and administration directly – a relationship that would not be possible at other institutions and should not be taken for granted. With this network of successful individuals and advocacy organizations at Goucher finding their role and voices it is only right we begin to question why GSG senate has seemingly never figured out its own role.

1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 14
Go to Top