How the U.S Election affected Politics Around the World
By Hannah Winter
The election of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States of America not only devastated millions of Americans, it continued the global trend of nationalism, whose force had already shocked many with the Brexit results in June.
As a German citizen studying at NYU and the New School in New York City for one semester, it made me nervous about my home country’s election next year. After months of speculation, Angela Merkel officially announced that she would be running again for another four-year term. The polls show that regardless of the ups and downs that came with her handling of the refugee crisis, the public still strongly supports her. The large majority of polls also showed that Hillary Clinton was in for an easy win of the U.S. election.
Ever since the first refugees arrived in Germany in 2015, far-right parties such as the “Alternative for Germany” (AfD) have been on the rise, with current opinion polls showing about 17% support nationwide.
Returning to my home university, the American University of Paris, in January, the upcoming elections in France are another concern of mine. With far right Front National party leader Marine Le Pen as the third significant front-runner in the 2017 election, nationalism is not unlikely to path its way into leadership in France. Le Pen is currently at around 28% in opinion polls.
What all these nationalist leaders have in common is the appeal of a strong vision of change, which is powerful. The opposing side currently has no vision to combat it but rather proposes a continuum of the status quo. Angela Merkel needs to address a clear vision on how to handle the refugee crisis. On how to organize integration, give realistic chances and motivation to those that come to Germany for safety and a better life, and also on how to effectively protect the German citizens against those that enter the country with the intent to harm it.
Ho Ho Holy sh*t , its that time of year again! And you know what that means: Christmas trees, Salvation Army Santas, peppermint overdoses at Starbucks, and of course, endless Christmas music. Even if you don’t celebrate Christmas, you can still feel the holiday spirit creeping up around every decorative corner. However, with the stress of upcoming finals and scheduling classes for next semester on the rise, you may feel your holiday spirit begin to dwindle away; but don't give up hope just yet! If you're spending this holiday season in the always festive NYC, you'll have plenty of fun and cheap (because as a college student, your wallet is usually just as empty as your stomach) ways to spend your winter break!
You better not pout, you better not cry, and I'll give you a list of reasons why:
Ice Skating- Ice skating is a must during the holiday. Bring a buddy or a group of friends along to one of the many ice skating rinks throughout the city, no matter if they have the grace of an Olympic ice skater or they're a natural disaster with two blades strapped to their feet. Some great spots to check out include the Sky Rink at Chelsea Piers where admission is $10 and a skate rental is $5, which is a pretty sweet deal considering that you can skate from 1:30pm-5pm on most days of the week. Another rink to look into is at Bryant Park where the admission is free but the skate rental is $20. However, you can skate the rink from 8am-10pm!
Secret Santa- For those who don't know, Secret Santa is the increasingly popular activity where a group of people participate in a secret gift exchange. Names of everyone in the group are placed into a bag or a bowl and for whichever name you choose, you have to get a gift for that person. The real trick is gifting that person with a present they'll actually like. *shudders from a flashback of receiving Justin Bieber’s first acoustic album at my first Secret Santa* Don't be that person who gets someone an acoustic version of Justin Bieber’s My World album (unless of course they want that album then by all means get it for them). Doing a Secret Santa amongst friends can have an amusing and entertaining outcome, especially when you eventually find out who bought what for who.
Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree- ‘Christmas Tree O’ Christmas Tree, How Lovely Are Your Branches?’ Well how about you go find out? The Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree is an amazing sight to see, for the tree itself is a staggering 94 ft tall this year. Not to mention the fact that the damn tree is prettier than I am, or anyone else that I've ever met with its twinkling lights and thousands upon thousands of ornaments. You can stop by and take a flick for your Insta or Facebook profile, which would add some color to someone else’s dull newsfeed. And trust me, a Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree can always fit your aesthetic. Even if you run a vegan food blog. You know who you are.
Ugly Sweater Parties- Wearing an ugly holiday sweater never goes out of style. In fact, the uglier the better. And no, you can’t tape a mirror to your sweater and tell someone at the party, “My sweater seems to get uglier every time you walk pass me,” ( I mean it would be funny, but still). Pump the music, make some cookies, get a couple drinks (hot cocoa and eggnog of course), and jingle bell rock the night away.
To everyone out there who may or may not be celebrating a holiday, it’s still the season to be jolly. May you all have a Happy Hanukkah, a Happy Kwanzaa, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, ya filthy animals!
What started with Benjamin Grant’s picture a day on instagram to show the beauty of the Earth soon found 400,000 followers, now he has turned into a book that advocates and educates people about the environmental impact humans have on our planet. Eco-activist, author, and artist Grant visited the New School recently to talk about the newly released “Overview.”
Grant, 27-year-old Yale graduate living in the Village, was clearly happy to be at The New School. “This is my first official book event in New York City”, he said, after which he explained the extraordinary journey has been on in creating and releasing his first book. Overview started out three years ago as a social media project. Grant posted one satellite image on instagram per day, showing fascinating landscapes using “the overview effect”, a cognitive shift that can be experienced when looking at the Earth from space. He would provide the images with a short description and explanation, hoping to trigger people to ask more questions about what they were seeing. His account soon had many followers and after a while the dream of every artist and author became true for Grant. He was approached by an editor who proposed to turn his project into a book, something that Grant said ‘yes’ to instantly.
Since then Grant has been working full-time on the book, which he wants to be a piece of accessible art that starts conversations about the relationship that humans have with the Earth. Grant choose to include many images in which human presence is clearly visible, reflecting on how much impact people have and how quickly we have changed the face of the Earth. He ultimately hopes that by raising awareness and showing people the beauty of our planet, it will automatically lead to changes in people’s everyday behavior.
On the morning of November 9th 2016, millions of women across the nation felt their hearts break as the news that Hillary Clinton would not be the President of the United States surfaced. After all of the campaigning, and all of the work that Clinton put forth to make history as the first female president, the electoral college worked against her favor. A good portion of the nation was appalled that history would not be made in 2016, by having a woman lead the nation for the first time.
During Clinton’s painful concession speech, she remained poised and professional as she addressed the nation. She remained hopeful for the future, even though she would not be leading this nation as she fought so hard to do. One of the highlights of her speech was when she said that although the loss hurt, never stop fighting for what’s right, and what’s worth it. (CNN.com) At another point she stated, “I know how disappointed you feel because I feel it too, and so do tens of millions of Americans who invested their hopes and dreams in this effort. This is painful and it will be for a long time, but I want you to remember this. Our campaign was never about one person or even one election, it was about the country we love and about building an America that's hopeful, inclusive and big-hearted. (CNN.com)
The disappointment of Clinton’s loss not only hit the democrats who sat before her, it hit millions of women who had the dream to someday be president, and also those men and women who believed in her and knew that she would bring forth great things for the future. It hit home for so many people because during her campaign she had a clear platform of what she was going to accomplish.
Some of things people were looking forward to consisted of her goals for immigration reform. Instead of looking for a way to “build walls” like her opponent Trump,(CNN,com) her goal was to make sure each person had an equal opportunity and would unite with American citizens rather than separate them. As stated on her website, If Congress keeps failing to act on comprehensive immigration reform, Hillary will enact a simple system for those with sympathetic cases—such as parents of DREAMers, those with a history of service and contribution to their communities, or those who experience extreme labor violations—to make their case and be eligible for deferred action. She also planned to break down the barriers that hold women back such as standing with planned parenthood, and protecting women’s health and reproductive rights.
Clinton has had the experience of being the first lady, working as secretary of state, working as the senator of New York, and working to help minorities and women across the nation. Even after all that she accomplished, there was still a portion of the country who believed that a man with no history in politics, no real stance, and a hot temper should lead the nation.
As stated on Clinton’s campaign website, After she graduated from Yale she became an advocate for kids and families at the Children’s Defense Fund, as Secretary of state she made women’s rights a cornerstone of U.S. Foreign Policy. By standing with planned parenthood and focusing on women’s rights, she was giving women the comfort that their rights would be taken seriously and as a women herself, she would do everything in her power to help.
During his campaign Trump found himself in hot water after a 2005 recording resurfaced of him making remarks about ‘grabbing women by the pussy’ (Fahrenthold, David, Washington Post) and at one point stated that women should be punished to some degree for having abortion.(Flegenheimer, Matt. Haberman, Maggie. New York Times) Although Clinton maintained her goal from the beginning to unite America, fought for everyone to be treated with respect and dignity, and even had the support from the First Lady and President Obama, still the victory was Trump’s. No matter how outlandish Trump’s remarks were, his supporters increased and stood by his side. No matter how great Clinton’s accomplishments were, it wasn’t enough against a conservative dominant white male figure.
In the Telegraph, it explained that the voting turnout was lower this year than in 2012.(Scott, Patrick.) U.S. election results showed that Trump received 302 electoral votes while Clinton only won 232 electoral votes. Clinton won the popular vote by having 47.8 percent while Trump had a close 47.3 percent of the popular vote.
As stated in The New York Times, While a clear majority of the state’s Latinos cast their votes for Clinton…..One in three Latinos in Florida voted for Trump.(Valdes, Marcela. New York Times) To understand what went wrong during this election it is important to look at the data. Based on BBC.com, Only 41 percent of men voted for Clinton while 53 percent of men voted for Trump. 54 percent of women voted for Clinton while only 42 percent of women voted for Trump . 58 percent of whites voted for Trump while only 37 percent of whites voted for Clinton. 88 percent of African Americans voted for Clinton while only 8 percent of African Americans voted for Trump. 65 percent of Hispanics and Asians voted for Clinton while only 29 percent of Hispanics and Asians voted for Trump. The only racial demographic Clinton lost over was the white demographic overall. (BBC)
Although Clinton won the popular vote, it was not enough to win her the presidency. Many people are shocked by Trump’s victory due to the fact that he has no prior background of being in politics and has found himself in hot water many times for his remarks and sexual allegations.
During all three of the presidential debates, Trump lost his cool, speaking over the moderators and over Hillary Clinton. He even referred to his opponent by calling her a “nasty woman.” No matter how out of line he became, the more applause he received from his conservative supporters.
Although many had an issue with his temper, still many did not want Clinton to be president, specifically the conservative men in the southern states. A lot of voters wanted to see a drastic change over the administration and to them Trump was that change, regardless of how many offensive remarks he made. Trump tried to uphold his male dominance over the election by being loud, making crude comments about women and his opponent, which gained support from many.
On CNN.com Based on a recent poll in 2016 asking the population how important it would be to have a female president, data showed that only 31 percent said it was an important priority. That figure is higher among women (35%) than among men (25%), and Democrats (54%) prioritize it more than Republicans (13%). Based on the data and on all that transpired during this heated election, it is clear that America is just not ready for a female president.
The presidential election has come and gone. It has left many in a state of shock, anger, sadness, and others elated and full of happiness.
According to various exit polls Trump received 18-30 percent of the Latinx vote in this country.
I am writing to you, and asking why? No condescension or bitterness behind the question whatsoever. I am genuinely curious what lead you to make that decision.
He began his campaign trail with rife and derogatory rhetoric against Latinxs. Though his hate was specifically geared towards Mexicans, it’s obvious that this affects us all. Especially when sometimes people will call you out on speaking “Mexican” when they mean Spanish. As if even being Mexican is some sort of insult, when it’s not. When in saying that you’re Latina men immediately categorize you as some sort of sex symbol, something they can click on. When people assume that all Latinxs are lazy, gangsters, drug dealers, thieves, rapists.
Do white people see us as all the same? Maybe. Maybe not. But hate crimes against Latinxs keep rising.
I feel that maybe many of us have forgotten that we immigrated to this country looking for better opportunities. If not you, then your parents, or your grandparents. It seems to me that we have forgotten what struggle looks like and have become complacent. It seems to me that we are denying our most basic and principal identity. In a country based on white supremacy we cannot compromise and we cannot ever feel fully safe.
To me, November 9th felt like it would never end. In my life, I have never been more scared, more angry, or more deeply saddened. It felt like a horrible break up, or the death of a loved one. My anxiety was on the fritz, and I don’t think I will be able to focus for a long time. The nation seemed ready to move forward, when so many of us feel that we’ve gone backwards, or really, nowhere at all.
Of course, this isn’t what you felt seeing your candidate win. I have heard some reasons as to why your vote went to the Republican candidate. Many of it has to do with financial reasons, some of it has to do with national security, individual citizen’s rights, job security. You see him as the change you may have been waiting for, something that Obama and any other Democratic candidate couldn’t give you. You see this as beyond color and race.
I want to tell you that it’s not. This country was built on the backs of indigenous people and of slaves. May I remind you that our countries share that same colonial history. You’re right that we must unify, move forward, see what the next four years will bring, but sometimes I can’t see past my own fear. I know many others who also can’t.
Which is why I need you to explain to me what has happened. I obviously have my views and personal feelings on the subject, and I tend to surround myself with people who see the same. And that’s where you come in, to really have a conversation and make such a confusing situation clearer for me.
I want to be part of a generation where an actor’s trajectory is not defined by their minority status.
When I talk about Aziz Ansari or Mindy Kaling, I don’t want to have to say “the Indian actor” before people understand who they are. As an Indian in America, I get to face some cold hard racism on a weekly basis. Sometimes from the old man who wants me to “go back to my country” or from that girl in my class who constantly asks me how I can speak English so well even though I’m from a “third world country”. But a majority of the time, the racism I face stems from how Hollywood represents Indians in their films and TV shows. More often than not, characters of Indian descent are mainly presented in TV shows and movies to be ridiculed as hyper-Indian stereotypes. Take Apu from The Simpsons, despite the fact that he holds a Ph.D. in computer science, he is portrayed as nothing more than a convenience store manager who hates his life and his children. Thank you Hollywood for reconfirming that all Indian men living in America hate their families, have a thick accent and love working in convenience stores. How many more times do I have to see an Indian being mocked for their accent or become the butt of all jokes? Come on Hollywood, I’m over it. These jokes aren’t funny anymore. Give me something else to laugh about! You know what, don’t do this for me. Do this for your large white audience. I’m sure they are bored too!
Here’s the thing, it’s not just Indians who are cast horrendously and mocked constantly in hollywood, it’s every minority. If you’re Hispanic, it’s assumed that you should be cast as the rich family’s maid whom her employer has a scandalous affair with. If you’re Black, why not be the neighborhood drug dealer who gets arrested at the end of the episode? If you’re Asian, I think it’s best you try not to be Jackie Chan and instead audition to be the school’s official ‘nerd’, because nothing is better than studying to be an actor and watching it all go down the toilet, literally, with your dignity. I can go on and list the numerous stereotypes in Hollywood but I don’t think I’ve ever stopped to think, why? Why do they willingly degrade minorities in their works? Jeremy Slater from Hollywood Investigator says “stereotypes are invaluable because audiences have been conditioned to expect certain behaviors from certain types of characters.” Therefore, allowing screenwriters to get away with these microaggressions. Who would’ve thought that big executives from Hollywood would get leeway for doing so? Didn’t see that one coming! Slater goes on to explain that because of this conditioning, audiences will have no issue with accepting these stereotypes as opposed to “genuine character development.” Furthermore, he emphasizes that critics assume that there is some greater meaning behind embedded stereotypes and therefore the critic reviews the movie, giving it in a good rating and I guess all is good in the world, for the writers that is.
Reflecting on this, I think it’s fair to say that writers are constantly playing with stereotypes. These stereotypes are overused and inaccurate but because of the audience’s complacency with these stereotypes, the movie or TV show still works out well. As a result of this, good critic reviews implies that you’re a good writer, your film was successful and you made money. In the end, everything works out for the writers but minorities still suffer from a tarnished reputation for no reason at all. However, there’s proof that not every writer is like this. Take Amy Poehler for example, her show Parks & Recreation casted various minorities through the series but not once did she portray them in a situation which could have degraded them or their origin. Another example is ‘Master of None’ Aziz Ansari’s show where he highlights the issues Indian actors face on the daily. He discusses the misrepresentation of Indians and the mentality of the industry in which they wish to be part of. Taking this into consideration, we can say that the issue is not with all the writers (maybe just a handful) but with the foundation of hollywood. The idea of being in Hollywood is so romanticized, it’s where you can be a “star” and the whole world revolves around you. But obviously, this is a mentality that no longer exists. People’s eyes have been opened to what lies beyond the cinema or TV screen. They are no longer mesmerized by actors but instead with what the film actually means.
The thing is, I’m just so sick and tired of seeing white people dominate an industry that can so easily be diverse. Don’t get me wrong, I think white people have every right to be in this industry. But how do we live in the 21st Century and still have to deal with an award show recognizing only white actors, it’s unfathomable. Anyone else remember #OscarsSoWhite? I don’t blame you if you forgot because who would remember something that happens so often? Throwback to 1997 and 1998! The 2016 Oscars were something else, besides not having any people of colour nominees, a POC made racist remarks about other POC’s. When Chris Rock made a racist joke about Chinese children, I was in shock. I couldn’t believe Chris Rock, a person of colour, just made fun of three much younger people of colour! That did not just happen. I needed to know more, so I researched it. I found exactly what I expected to find; I was not in shock at all. The Academy had known about the joke, rehearsed the joke multiple times and still did nothing. Was the boycotting of the Oscars not obvious enough for them to realize that they were clearly participating in the misrepresentation of minorities? This just reiterates what I said earlier, it is not just one individual's fault that POC’s are represented the way they are, it is the entire foundation of Hollywood that is faulty.
So where do we go from here? Making changes can start on a small scale so make these changes in your own community. Don’t support unrealistic representations of minorities, understand that minorities aren’t always how they are represented by some screenwriter desperate for a 10/10 review on IMDb. Be vocal, be strong and stand your ground. Gina Rodriguez, star of Jane The Virgin, explains how we as an audience hold the majority of power when decided the fate of a film. This is when we as individuals unify, if we take a stand against films and TV shows where people of color aren’t given appropriate roles or are misrepresented, we can stop the below the surface racism. Consequently, entertainment industries will hear your voices. As a young girl who grew up watching only white actors dominate the shows I watched, I was always conflicted between who to look up too. I found myself idealizing the idea of being white, till date I wonder how different my life would be if I were white. Luckily, I had the exposure to Bollywood where I found it easier to identify with actors who looked like me and had similar problems...but what about those who were never exposed to that? As I’ve grown older, I look up to women like Mindy Kaling and Priyanka Chopra who redefine what an Indian woman in Hollywood is.
It’s been many, many years of fighting the same war but let’s be the generation that wins the war. Lastly and most importantly, if you are a minority, don’t be affected by these stereotypes. Instead, challenge them. Why not prove so many writers wrong by becoming the CEO of a fortune 500 firm even though your skin colour differs from the previous. Don’t give into their false idealization of you.
I think they should be proud of all their accomplishments but I think it’s time everyone gets an opportunity to be cast in big primetime roles.
Works Cited
Slater, Jeremy. "HOLLYWOOD'S RACIAL STEREOTYPES: WHY THEY DO IT." Hollywood's Racial Stereotypes: Why They Do It. N.p., 15 Nov. 2006. Web. 07 Oct. 2016. <http://www.hollywoodinvestigator.com/2006/stereotypes.htm>.
In case you missed it, Marc Jacobs adorned his (mostly white) models for the Spring/Summer 2017 show in pastel dreads. Models like Karlie Kloss, Gigi Hadid, and Kendall Jenner all could be seen strut the runway with this seasons latest trend: cultural appropriation.
Not only did Jacobs have an almost entirely white line-up in these culturally appropriative dreads; but also, all of his inspirations were white as well. Lana Wachowski, rave culture, acid house and club culture, travelers, Boy George and Marilyn were all cited as inspirations. It is then obvious what Jacobs was going for: the “outcasts” of yesteryear, and celebrating their significance. However, the problem then is also obvious: Jacobs’ inspirations themselves were already being culturally appropriative, making his show yet another removed inspiration from African American Culture. The woman who created the dreads for the show is a white woman who sells them on her Etsy shop. Jen, the hairdresser, explained that she started selling dreads on her Etsy shop because she “saw the colors and thought they were pretty”.
Fortunately, we live in the age of the Internet, and Jacobs was soon swarmed with comments spanning all social medias about the racist roots of cultural appropriation. When confronted, however, Jacobs said “And all who cry “cultural appropriation” or whatever nonsense about any race of skin color wearing their hair in a particular style or manner - funny how you don’t criticize women of color for straightening their hair.” Then proceeding to say: “I don’t see color or race – I see people”.
Apparently, the life span of Jacobs’ career could last only until 2015. After making his initial “color blind” claim, Jacobs made a pathetic attempt to backpedal and correct his previous claims. While his apology soothed some of his fans, his reputation has been soiled. Cultural appropriation has been a long-standing issue, and only now are we, as a society, largely aware of its deep-rooted racism. Hopefully from Jacobs’ Spring-Summer 2017 show more than just Marc Jacobs learn from this – and I’m not just talking about the ever-problematic Kendall Jenner and Gigi Hadid. From this, we can all learn about the historical importance of not only dreads, specifically, but also cultural appropriation as a whole.
According to the United States Census Bureau, Hispanics/Latinos constitute 17% of the U.S. population, making them the “the nation’s largest ethnic or racial minority.” Forbes Magazine found that at the New School 10.8% of students identify as Hispanic/Latino, making them the school’s third largest racial/ethnic group. So, where is this diverse, and highly complex community’s representation in New School academia? More specifically, where are the Latin@* Studies major and minor? I sat down with Professor Juan De Castro, one of the only professors at Eugene Lang who focuses mainly on Latin@* and Latin American* topics, to discuss this issue in more depth.
Q: What about Latin American topics appealed to you?
De Castro: Well, I’m Latin American. So, you know, I have a certain kind of emotional interest in them. Although I’m very interested in many other things, I didn’t have that kind of emotional investment [in anything else].
Q: Why do you think there is not a Latin@ Studies major?
D.C.: Oh, I think there’s [sic] no Latin@ Studies major perhaps because there is not enough demand. You know, we have to think in kind of market terms. If the school became aware that there was a significant demand for a Latin@ Studies major, they would take steps towards creating one. So, it depends if we have students who want to take Latino-themed course, or not… and how many students will be willing to come to Lang to take Latino-themed courses.
[That] would be actually the difference between a minor and a major. We have enough students now who want to take Latino-themed courses and I think you know…a minor could be easily created. Much more complicated would be creating a major. A major actually requires not only having students here who would take those courses, but having students that are willing to say this is my discipline, and…that’s a little more complicated.
Q: So, have you received any interest from students about a major or a minor?
D.C.: Only this semester.
Q: Really?
D.C.: Yeah. I think this is the first semester where I had students talking about it. Before, I really haven’t [sic] heard of much. There used to be…a group that they called themselves the Langeros [sic]. The only thing I know is that they were like a Latino group that even had faculty…and by the time I came here the faculty had left and there didn’t seem to be any particular interest on the part of students. So, by the time I got here…there were no Langeros, and no call for Langeros either.
Q: You told me about the Hispanic Studies minor at NSPE, How do you feel about it? Have you read more into it?
D.C.: It’s more language-oriented, and they include a lot of my courses in there. But, I think that…because it’s run by Foreign Languages…it’s sort of like offering students who are interested in Spanish…a kind of context within which they can branch out a little bit. It’s sort of [for] students who are taking Spanish classes…and they become passionate about the culture. So, they’ve created a minor that sort of tells them…you can take these courses to further your learning about Latin America or Spanish cultures in the case of Hispanic Studies. So, I think that that’s sort of the way it works.
Q: What would you think about calling it Hispanic* studies, as opposed to Latin@ Studies?
D.C: Oh, it’s very East Coast. The New School is an East Coast institution… so it thinks in those terms, the terms [of] that…mainstream, East Coast view of the world. That’s what I think underlies the Hispanic. You know, for instance, the Hispanic American Historical Society, it originally…studied Spain, and now I think they’ve branched out to Latin America…I think it responds to a kind of East Coast academic tradition. And also, it makes sense that we think of it as language-oriented, because Spanish is linked to Hispanic.
Q: And you’ve never championed for a Latin@ Studies major or minor?
D.C.: No. First of all, you know, I have to be honest. Although I’ve written on Latino topics, it’s not like, my main field. And by the way, I don’t think it’s anybody’s main field at Lang. The fact is that, as far as I know, there is not one faculty member who is actually primarily interested in Latino topics in any department. Not only literature, because of course, if it were going to be Latino studies, you can’t have only literature. And then, of course the other question…responds to the number of students who would take the course. At least in my case, the number of students I have in a class influences whether I teach that course again, and this goes back to the whole issue of demand.
Q: Right. Yeah, the school is a business. We forget that.
D.C.: We can’t really criticize the university, because of course…if the business side falters, then everything will go wrong.
*Latina or Latino
*United States inhabitants of Latin American decent or origin
* From and residing in Latin America
*Hispanic refers to Spain or Spanish-speaking countries
Creepy clowns are becoming a national, if not global, crisis.
All over the world, figures dressed in colorful costumes and donning outrageous makeup are terrorizing the general public. In San Francisco, a mother is reported to have fought off a knife-wielding clown who attempted to kidnap her one-year-old child. Similarly, there have been six reports of people in clown costumes, threatening civilians in Britain. They are said to be stalking their targets with knives and similar weapons.
Most of these incidents have been dismissed as hoaxes by officials. However, recent information has come to light that revealed at least a few of these sightings to be publicity stunts. Just this past month, citizens of Greenbay, Wisconsin, were terrorized by ‘Gags the Clown,’ wearing a raggedy jumpsuit and carrying four jet-black balloons. A video taken of the figure walking somberly down a city street at night has gone viral on Facebook, garnering over eight thousand views. It was later revealed that this was an elaborate marketing campaign orchestrated by Adam Krause in order to garner attention for the horror film he was making, Gags, which concerned a murderous clown.
When asked about the publicity stunt and the activities of Gags the Clown, Captain Kevin Wary of the Green Bay Police Department said “a person can walk down the sidewalk dressed however they want. As long as they’re in a place where they legally can be and they’re not in a place that has a closing time, like a park, they can be there dressed however they want.”
The film Gags is, however, just one example of an entertainment franchise which poses to gain hype from this bizarre phenomenon. Indeed, this comes just months before the impending release of the remake to Stephen King’s 1990 TV miniseries It, which depicts the relentless torment of a group of childhood friends at the hands of a supernatural, murderous clown-like entity.
It is unclear whether or not these sightings are passing occurrences. Considering the fact that coulrophobia (fear of clowns) is a centuries old phenomenon, it seems unlikely.
What The Columbia Ruling Means For New School Students
By SENS-UAW
On August 23rd the National Labor Relations Board ruled that student workers at private universities are eligible to unionize under federal law. This ruling is extremely exciting for us. We at SENS-UAW have been working for the past three years to create a graduate worker union, and thanks to the NLRB's decision we could soon have one.
What does this mean for us?
Most importantly, it means that student workers at the New School will soon be able to vote to form a union, and that when we do the administration will be required to sit down at the table with us and negotiate a contract. This will allow student workers to collectively bargain over wages, health and family benefits, workload, and all other aspects of our employment.
The NLRB ruling was made in response to a petition from student workers at Columbia. A petition from New School students was submitted at the same time and, given the Board’s ruling on the Columbia decision, its approval is likely a foregone conclusion. We expect the NLRB to release its decision on our case soon, which will allow us to schedule a vote on unionization. While federal bureaucracy is not always swift-acting, given that our petition was submitted at the same time as Columbia’s we could receive a decision any day now.
Why do we need a union? In the course of our campaign, student workers have raised many issues: low pay, late pay, lack of paid health insurance, insufficient tuition waivers, lack of sick days, and a lack of a meaningful grievance procedure, among others. What unifies the majority of supporters of SENS-UAW is the desire to address all of these concerns through a collective bargaining process where we can sit down as equals with the administration.
Student workers are employees, as the NLRB has now affirmed.For too long universities have been denying that student workers are “true” employees, arguing that student workers’ primary relationship with the university is that of student. The Board’s decision affirms what we have been arguing all along - we are both students and workers, and deserve recognition as such. treating them as sources of cheap labor who should be grateful for the opportunity to add an assistantship position to their resumes. Unionization will allow us to end this dynamic and force the administration to recognize that our labor has value.
Our campaign for unionization has received support from many fronts. We have been endorsed by Noam Chomsky, and Senator Bernie Sanders and mayor De Blasio and have received the support of Graduate-Faculty Student Senate and the University Student Senate. But most importantly, a huge majority of student workers have continued to support SENS-UAW, as evidenced in our open letter to President Van Zandt last spring urging the administration to respect our choice.
Unfortunately, the administration has not been supportive of our efforts. Instead they’ve chosen to spend our money hiring an expensive outside legal team to fight our petition at the NLRB, and even now that the NLRB has ruled that we have the right to unionize the administration has refused to pledge to remain neutral in the coming election or promised to sit down at the bargaining table with us once the unionization vote passes. Instead the administration released a website aimed at convincing us to question unionization, which is modeled on anti-union websites launched by the University of Chicago, Harvard, Columbia and others, and suggests that a union will be expensive and ineffectual. We find it intellectually dishonest that they would attempt to appear neutral while providing information aimed at discouraging support for the union.
In the leadup to the unionization vote, we need your help in spreading the word! Come support us at the Town Hall this Thursday from 3:00 to 4:30 at the campus center. Follow us on facebook, come to our organizing meetings, and spread the word to your friends and colleagues! We need everyone’s help to ensure that our unionization efforts are successful.
It’s definitely safe to say that millennials have left their mark on the 2016 Presidential Election. For this election, millennials have flooded the polls, campaigned for their candidate of choice, and have become more political than ever before.
For many, including myself, it’s the first election they are legally allowed to vote in. I’m not shy to say that I’ve become one of these politically aggressive millennials. Us millennials have become more concerned with the future of the nation, the environment, and social justice in order to secure a better future for us all. But as a politically aggressive millennial, I was more than excited the Democratic National Convention was coming to my home of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I knew I couldn’t pass up this opportunity. Because the convention was not open to the general public, I signed up as a volunteer, which would grant me access to the inside of the arena.
The convention spanned from July 25-28th, and the weather was not forgiving. Philadelphia heat is unlike any other (humid and almost 100 degrees) and as a volunteer, I had a very good chance of being placed outside. I anticipated working a long, eight hour shift, where I would be on my feet the entire time. My job was to check the credentials of everyone entering the post I was stationed at, deciding whether or not they were authorized to enter that particular area. With this role, I was never guaranteed being able to view the convention. I understood all of the terms and conditions from the start, but I also knew this would be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity I could not miss. I never expected to witness and actively be a part of such historic events.
The Democratic Convention was significant for a number of different reasons. One part of the convention I found most significant was the role of Bernie Sanders and his supporters.
On Monday, protesters supporting Sanders lined up outside of the Wells Fargo Center in South Philadelphia to continue the spread of the political revolution their candidate represented in the primaries. While Hillary Clinton was projected as the democratic nominee in June, Sanders supporters refused to let their message die. The candidate and his passionate supporters held signs and reiterated slogans pertaining to democratic socialism, environmental justice, affordable college, breaking up big banks and corporations, and many more. The protesters marched around the perimeter chanting "We are the 99%!", holding signs and wearing Sanders campaign apparel. The protests outside lasted all four days of the convention. A large percentage of the protestors were millennials, reminding attendees of the convention that their voices would be heard.
Inside the arena, many supporters and delegates walked through the doors holding signs, wearing buttons, hats, and outfits that supported their favorite candidate. One woman wore a blue and green dress with the image of Barack and Michelle Obama dancing in the front. However, a lot of delegates remained partial and wore a plain suit, not endorsing either candidate.
Through the first night of speeches, Sanders chants roared from the crowd, despite the fact the convention was undoubtedly more focused on Hillary Clinton, the presumptive nominee. Boos were as common as cheers, and rose after the naming of Donald Trump or the time Comedienne Sarah Silverman said the relentless Sanders supporters were "being ridiculous". Half of my time at the convention was spent on the “Digital Balcony”, which housed the press. The most influx came when important people spoke, and reporters ran into the arena when the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Michelle Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Bill Clinton spoke. When Sanders came out for his speach, around 10:00pm eastern time, he delivered a powerful speech that reiterated the points from his revolution and practically implored his supporters to give their votes to Clinton.
“Based on her ideas and her leadership, Hillary Clinton must become the next president of the United States,” Sanders said. He also expressed his disappointment in their final result, but insisted that his supporters could not let a candidate like Donald Trump win the White House. Many supporters continued to emotionally chant his name, other standing to show their support for Clinton, and other unable to speak, choked up in their tears. Despite the tear-jerking speech given by Sanders, there were still many supporters chanting "Bernie or Bust".
Another historic moment occurred on the second night, beginning when Sanders's brother Larry cast his lone vote from the Democrats Abroad for Sanders, expressing how proud he was of him. When it came time for Vermont, Sanders moved to have Hillary Clinton nominated as presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. Cheers erupted, and I personally watched as one teenage girl next to me broke down in tears. It was emotional to watch, knowing that people my age so actively involved in politics saw the candidate they most likely cast their first ballot for and so passionately fought for lose. At the same time many of the supporters were accepting the defeat, many were not done fighting. A number of Sanders delegates staged a walkout of the convention, and at the exact same time the walkout occurred, I went on my lunch break. The Sanders delegates organized in the arena and gathered around the press tent chanting, which caused police to hold their guard around the arena for some time.
On the third night of the convention President Obama and Vice President Biden spoke on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The police and secret service were surrounding the convention (even more than the other two days) and there was little room for protests. Because of President Obama's immense likability, there was finally a sense of unity which bled into the fourth night when history would be made. Hillary Clinton gave the biggest, most historic speech of her life. She did use this speech to reach out to Sanders supporters, saying not only that she needed them to win against Trump, but also that she would be working closely with Sanders, particularly in dealing with college debt and tuition. I was witnessing history as the first woman nominee to represent a major party was nominated for President of the United States. Personally, I was so touched by the speech I shed a few tears. It was an amazing experience to witness and a monumental event to experience.
While history had been made in the four days of the convention, It led me to think even more in depth about the 2016 election. There’s still a demand for Sanders campaigners support on Clinton’s side and a lot of controversy with the entire election. While a number of Sanders supporters have pledged to support Clinton, there's still a very big elephant in the room (pun intended).
There are still a large number of people pledging allegiance to the "Bernie or Bust" campaign. Voters are pledging to vote for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, writing in a candidate, or just staying home on Election Day. While people have the right to vote for whoever they choose, this election seems to be more important than most. Many people (Republican, Democrat, or Third Party) say they cannot support Hillary Clinton but they also cannot support Donald Trump. The American public has trust issues with Clinton. There's no doubt she's guilty of cherry-picking the truth and the email scandal was a disaster. I've read her books "Living History" and "Hard Times" and researched her policies and found she is consistent and fundamentally truthful (in fact she was found to be the most truthful candidate of the 2016 primary according to Politifact). She has a record of setting goals and getting them done, working with others in government as a team, and wants elect a Democratic congress so she can actually pass bills without having them go stale.
However, this election is about much more than politics right now, especially as millennials with our fate hanging in the balance. On the right-hand side is Donald Trump; known for using misogynistic, racist, and ableist rhetoric to support his campaign. He has the backing many members of the GOP (but not all) because they all share a hatred of Hillary Clinton. Trump has continually tried to reach out to conflicted Sanders supporters by preaching his political outsider status. (Which, by the way, saying you don't want a politician as president is like saying you don't want an mechanic to fix your car). His language and ideas are extremely damaging and will undoubtedly regress the country. Regardless of politics, it is unacceptable for a candidate for president to use such hateful rhetoric and incite violence.
If Bernie or Bust people vote for Clinton, it will protect a number of points that don’t necessarily get the media attention they deserve. This includes the fact that under a Clinton presidency, trans people can stay on hormones and use gender neutral bathrooms. If Bernie or Bust people vote for Clinton, gay marriage will stay legalized. It would be extremely damaging to the country if people refuse to vote for Clinton and instead turn to independents, third party candidates, or write-in a candidates at a time where people's rights are being threatened or beliefs are being attacked. Sanders doesn't want anyone's vote and he wants people to vote for Clinton because of the importance of the race and America's future. Many people may not support the Democratic party, but this election is so unique and shocking it may be time to defy precedent. Besides, there's always going to be a time in American politics where you are going to disagree with the president/president elect. This isn't Utopia. But this also isn't the time to sit out.
I’m With Her, not with Trump and so is Barack Obama
By Alissa McPherson
As the election heats up, both Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have made it clear how they plan to run the country. During the DNC, Chelsea Clinton, Chloe Moretz, Katy Perry and President Obama spoke out about Hillary, speaking about her character and ability to run the country with strength and grace. During the RNC Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump stood by her father and had nothing but good things to say about his character. Ivanka spoke out about her father’s character by stating, “My father not only has the strength and ability necessary to be our next President, but also the kindness and compassion that will enable him to be the leader that this country needs.” (Drabold, Will, TIME)
Although, both Trump and Clinton had supporters of their own who spoke out about their character, it didn’t stop them from tearing each other to pieces. During the DNC, Obama stood with Clinton and spoke out on why Trump would be the wrong choice as president. As Clinton and Obama spoke out against Trump the crowd booed to show their agreement with the two democrats. Although Hillary and Obama were once running-mates when Obama first ran for president eight years ago, both stood together against Trump. The two running mates speech definitely gave the election a push in the right decision.
The most inspiring part of Clinton and Obama’s speeches were the respect they had for eachother. They stood together as one against Trump and were not afraid to speak their minds. Like many of us, they both know the harm that this country will endure if Trump is president. Trump works more as a dictator than a president, and claims that he alone can fix this nation. He claims that Clinton is not fit to be president which could not be further from the truth. To be exact Trump has claimed, “She is reckless with her emails, reckless with regime change, and reckless with American lives... Our nation has been humiliated abroad and compromised by radical Islam brought onto our shores. We need change now.”(Spiering, Charlie, Breitbart) Now of course politics is a brutal game of lies and constant judgement from the opponent, but regardless of the fact, it is still hard to hear when it is coming from a man like Donald Trump.
During the DNC, Obama had a lot of positive things to say about Clinton but what really stood out were the things he said about Trump. Obama did not hold back in his speech, which made it even more powerful. Obama stated, “Donald is not really a plan's guy, he’s not really a facts guy either, he calls himself a business guy which is true but I have to say I’ve known plenty of businessmen and women who’ve achieved remarkable success without leaving a trail of lawsuits, and unpaid workers and people feeling like they got cheated (DNC, MSNBC)
Ever since Obama has become president, Trump has tried extremely hard to make Obama’s presidency look weak and flawed, and it really showed a different side of Obama to hear him speak out against Trump. There was the incident where Trump accused Obama of not being a natural born citizen, and requesting him to show his birth certificate. Trump has stated, “Why doesn’t he show his birth certificate? The fact is, if he wasn’t born in this country, he shouldn’t be the president of the United States,” the billionaire developer said in a CNN interview that aired Sunday. The Constitution requires that the president be a “natural-born citizen.” (Eldridge, David, Washington Post) A man who is openly disrespectful to the president of the United States and those in power should not be chosen to run this nation.
At the RNC, Trump had stated, "Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. I have seen firsthand how the system is rigged against our citizens, just like it was rigged against Bernie Sanders – he never had a chance.”(Sherman, Amy, Politifact) Not only is he wrong to stand in front of millions of Americans and state that he is the only one who can fix the nation, but he is arrogant enough to actually believe that he alone can actually ‘fix America’ as if it’s broken or weakened. In response to Trump’s arrogant statement, Obama stated, “We don’t look to be ruled….we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….the capacity to shape our own
destiny! America has never been about what one person can do for us, but what can be achieved by us together. America is already great, America is already strong, and our greatness does not depend on Donald Trump, in fact it does not depend on any one person.” He went on to say, “Does anybody think that a man who has spent 70 years on this Earth who have shown no regard for working people is suddenly going to be your champion, your voice?” Clinton stated in response to Trump’s speech, “Don’t let anyone tell you that our country is weak, we’re not, don’t let anyone tell you we don’t have what it takes we do.” (DNC, MSNBC)
Obama called Trump out as well for his statements about banning muslims from the U.S. due to the recent terrorist threats. Obama stated, “Hillary knows we can insist on a lawful and orderly immigration system while still seeing striving students and their toiling parents as loving families not criminals, or rapists, families that came here for the same reason our forebearers came to work and to study and have a better life…. the American dream is something that no wall can ever contain.” (DNC, MSNBC)
That was probably the strongest part of Obama’s speech because although he didn’t mention Trump’s name, everyone watching knew exactly what he was talking about. It is true, no wall can keep out those who work hard enough to come to America for a better life. No matter what Trump says, the American dream is cut out for anyone willing to strive for it. The thing that makes Clinton and Obama perfect for presidential candidates is that they aim to bring people together, to unite America, and the world, rather than call everyone weak and pathetic like Trump does on a regular basis.
During Clinton’s speech she admitted that just like a lot of Americans, she didn’t believe Trump meant everything he said. Clinton went on to state, “At first, I can admit I didn’t think he meant it either, it was just too hard to fathom that someone who wants to lead the nation could say those things and could be like that but here is the sad truth: there is no other Donald Trump, this is it.” (DNC, MSNBC) Although Trump is known for his rude and offensive comments, he still has a huge following of people who somehow believe he will be a good president. Unfortunately no matter what Trump says or does, he will still have his following. It is clear that many Americans are unaware or choose to be unaware of his flaws as a politician and as a person.
As a democrat, looking back at the DNC I was definitely proud of what I saw. I finally saw women stand with Hillary Clinton and even the President of the United States spoke out intelligently about Clinton. The Morning Consult Poll found Clinton with a 43 percent to 40 percent advantage over Trump after the DNC. Although Trump received a 6 point bump in the Morning Consult Pool following the RNC. The DNC also provided Clinton with a boost in her favorability, which made a 6-point jump from 37% to 43%. Trump's favorability fell from 42% to 39%.(Smith, Allan, Business Outsider.) One piece of Obama’s speech that stuck with me the most was when he discussed Trump’s statements compared to Ronald Reagan's statements. “Ronald Reagan called America a shining city on a hill, Donald Trump calls it a divided crime scene that only he could fix…..He feels that if he can scare enough people he might get just enough votes to win this election and that’s another bet that Donald Trump will lose.” (DNC, MSNBC)
I believe that his statement is a perfect representation of Trump. He feels he is the only one who can fix an entire nation instead of viewing it as a work in progress for the entire nation to work on together. If Clinton was president, instead of Trump we wouldn’t have to worry about a whole population of people feeling like they have been cheated and misunderstood. We would have a president who would make the working class feel useful in this economy and make immigrants feel safe that they can come and go as they please, of course while respecting the laws of the nation. There would be no bigoted remarks about a population of people bringing in rapists, and murderers and instead a president who welcomes everyone with open arms and the opportunity to succeed no matter what race, creed, gender, or sexuality.
Who has permission to speak on behalf of an entire community? At times, the media tends to oppress voices of specific persons in the most insidious of ways. I have looked at 13 different articles (nine from The New York Times, two from The Wall Street Journal, and two from The Daily News). Focusing specifically on pieces written in 2012 to the present, using the keywords “gentrification”, “New York City” and “displacement”, the different publications dealt with each topic in contrasting ways. However, the fundamental principle of who has the right to speak on this subject, and more importantly, whose voice was significant enough to serve as a representative opinion for the subject, relied primarily on how much privilege the quoted speaker possessed.
Everyone was born with the inclination to speak about any matter, whether it be political or not. People form opinions, “yes” or “no”, “good” or “bad”, “positive” or “negative”–but who decides whose voice achieves more representation than others? Granted, I am not saying the press should run pieces dedicated to everyone’s opinions about every topic imaginable, but when it comes to pressing issues such as the displacement of an entire community and an abundance of generations of families, representation should rely heavily on those being directly impacted by being forced out of their beloved neighborhoods. Gentrification is a mammoth sized topic that is often thrown around without proper context, and while it is important to note that I referenced only 13 articles written within four years as opposed to referencing the thousands of articles written on this matter, it is clear to me that one voice carries more influence than the latter.
The New York Times’ Editorial Board ran a story in February 2015 titled, “Can New York Be Affordable Again?”, with a photo of a neighborhood in East New York located in Brooklyn. The piece referenced de Blasio’s State of the City speech where he commented on middle-class families’ ability to live in affordable neighborhoods, and his plans to execute this task by “reclaiming it through affordable housing.” Evidently, de Blasio’s speech was enough to insinuate that he–the mayor, a man with a substantial amount of authority and power over those middle-class families battling with this situation–is capable to serve as a representative speaker on this issue, as opposed to asking residents their opinion about the matter.
Bourdieu argued, “They asserted themselves as parties to the debate, entitled to express an authorized, authoritative opinion, to voice the performative utterance of a legitimate pressure group. The opinion mobilized–as if by a petition–about education closely coincide with the population of users of higher education” (411). Those who have higher education credentials tend to have the most popular opinions, which is to say those with the proper, fundamental resources have the privilege to speak on behalf of an entire population. This is because their voice has more authority and value, even if the subject they are talking about is not primarily influencing them. Mayor de Blasio, a graduate of New York University and Columbia University has the political power to voice his opinions about affordable housing, and his plans to resolve the issue–even if he is not undergoing the present circumstances. Residents of East New York, where 50% of the population is African American and 39% Hispanic, only 8% of residents in this neighborhood hold a college degree–needless to say, not one resident was featured in this editorial piece.
The right to speak should be balanced within any publication. No one voice should overtake another, because not only does this create a disparity between the right to speak, but the absence of another voice also entails certain consequences. Sharing one side of a situation is not only misleading, but also detrimental because an entire community becomes silenced. While it is crucial quote politicians and other authoritative figures who not only have access to the press, but also implement policies that, in turn, change how a neighborhood and its inhabitants thrive, people being readily affected by such events have an equal voice in the situation.
For example, The New York Times wrote an article in April of this year called, “Segregation Is an Obstacle to New York’s Housing Push.” Having referenced the mayor, the commissioner of the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development, and Craig Gurian (the executive director of the Anti-Discrimination Center), the piece focuses on policymakers and community program directors, but not one resident was featured in this piece. For example, having a resident who lives in housing could have been very beneficial to understanding the severities of the situation, because they can offer firsthand experience as to what it is like living in such conditions.
Within this piece, Gurian said, “’Stay off our turf’–that’s not a winning strategy. There’s not a good kind of segregation.” This would have been a great opportunity to hear from a resident who favors residential segregation due to certain circumstances, perhaps the resident being forced out of their neighborhood in order to make room for a more affluent crowd. Having a person who disagrees with Gurian’s statement would have provided an interesting counterargument, which not only makes the piece less biased, but the piece becomes more well rounded because of the spectrum of people referenced in the piece.
Ransworth Blair, for instance, would have been a suitable candidate to speak on his situation because his voice is equally as important as de Blasio’s. Blair resided at 930-940 Prospect Place and in January, 2014, he and several tenants took their landlord to court due to “his failure to provide heat and hot water in the winter – a tactic designed to push out low-income tenants.” While I searched through the 13 articles, most were heavy in statistics about affluent people moving into a neighborhood that harbored generations of longtime families, or filled with quotes and comments from local and city officials about how the issue is influencing current residents. In addition, authoritative figures such as de Blasio continued to restate the process behind helping current residents thrive, not crumble–but not once did a resident speak out on landlords pushing them out of their own home. Blair’s voice is equal to de Blasio’s not in terms of political power, but the power to reach a larger audience and influence an audience’s perception of the holistic situation.
Blair’s landlord sued him for missing rent payments, and ultimately the judge ruled in Blair’s favor. But, Blair left the building and settled for an affordable place in the Bronx after the gruesome court process. Despite having left Brooklyn, he returns frequently and noted, “Everything is different now. Even the produce at the corner grocery is fresher.”–Where were residents like Blair when publications speak about neighborhoods rapidly changing, rather than solely interviewing authoritative figures that do not even live in that community? In addition, the notion of a neighborhood receiving better living conditions inherently result from the influx of certain residents moving in. As Blair noted, even the food quality is better now that affluent people have moved in. The media should not only address this phenomena, but also explain the logic behind providing better resources for a specific group of persons instead of denying such quality of living from previous generations. Although I have only researched a select number of papers and looked at three publications within four years, the notion of more readily resources being accessible varied slightly–but the underlying issue practically resulted in contrasting socioeconomic standings, as well as racial differences.
More articles included quotes and statements from officials such as de Blasio than discussing the issue of race and class struggle as two complex factors that influence the rates in which neighborhoods change. The Wall Street Journal and The Daily News, however, did include statements from residents being impacted by the displacement.
Those will be referenced later on. By including quotes from higher authoritative figures with a prestigious educational background (in comparison to the latter group being impacted), those ideas from the educated class will serve as the representative idea for an entire population: “the less its ‘representatives’ are typical of the category as a whole, the principle of the bias is almost always their relationship to the educational system” (412).
From the neighborhoods I looked at, the disparities in educational backgrounds from residents are astonishing: 8% of East New York residents hold a college degree, while 29% hold a High School diploma. In Crown Heights and Prospect Heights, over one-quarter of the residents live below the Federal Poverty Level, 20% of residents completed less than high school and 40% are college graduates and high school graduates with some college. As of 2015 in East Harlem, 26% of residents completed less than high school, 38% are high school graduates with some college, and 36% hold a college degree.
But 31% of these residents live below the Federal Poverty Level; East Harlem is the twelfth-poorest neighborhood in New York City. What this means is that residents from these neighborhoods do not get the chance to speak in the media as often as they should, due to their educational backgrounds and social status.
The findings alongside the commonalities found amongst the articles I browsed indicate that the right to speak relies heavily on one’s access to wealth. People are inclined to believe someone who has educated rather than listen to someone who does not have a firm sense of what they are talking about; such a mentality is true in most cases, but at times, those who typically are not entitled to speak in open platforms such as the media, must have their story told. While the educational background of the few residents interviewed in the publications referenced is unclear, the assumption that people with a lesser education being silenced in the media is popular and evident within various publications.
There are numerous factors involved in any journalistic piece. Empathy, humanization, ethics, urgency, and transparency are just a few of the many qualifications that make journalism what it strives to be. While it is impossible to run every single story in every single neighborhood, it is important to shed light and awareness on small events that leave an imprint on the persons impacted by such events.
For example, my neighborhood is predominantly comprised of Latinos and African-Americans. Certain neighborhoods cater to different audiences, and it is necessary to have facilities that encourage such people to not only be comfortable in their space, but to encourage success and opportunities for them. The East Harlem Café and La Casa Azul were two large staples within my community that allowed residents, both and old new, to come together and preserve, educate, and indulge in Latino culture–all without having to venture miles outside of the neighborhood. The two establishments sat within walking distance between each other.
The café opened sometime around 2011 or 2012, and sat on East 103rd and Lexington Avenue. When you walked through the door, it felt as if you were visiting and old friend–people greeted each other warmly, the food was delicious and affordable, and the workspace was great for writers, poets, teachers, or just students wanting to relax. The windows were bright and vibrant with beautiful artwork, and people could always rent out space for readings or parties. The café hosted events such as open mic night, where authors were encouraged to showcase their work amongst other passionate people. The café was a home for some and not just a coffee shop. Its presence helped to bring the community together: the only café within our barrio that allowed our culture to breathe and shine.
Until it closed down sometime in 2015. When trying to find news sources that covered the closing of the establishment, I hit dead ends.Yelp was the only place to report the closing. The devastating loss of this gem is unclear: were the owners bought out? Did a tragedy cause the owner to shut its doors for good? Questions remained unanswered as publications gloss over this; a small closure in one community is not important enough to make it into the paper–even if it’s just a few sentences explaining the loss. Perhaps this event was not covered because it was not newsworthy enough. But when a community icon is shut down, there should be some sort of coverage. Perhaps if a more popular bakery, such as Magnolia Bakery, where to close down, their customers would be searching for answers and looking for big time publications for answers. This raises the question of does location influence how and what stories get covered? Was this place closed because the rent was too costly for the owners to afford?
Another establishment that meant a lot to East Harlem residents was La Casa Azul, which was ran by Aurora Anaya-Cerda. The bookstore was the only bookstore in East Harlem that sold texts in Spanish and English, offered art classes, and writing/poetry workshops. Few bookstores in the neighborhood have lasted, one being Cemi Underground, which closed its doors in 2009 after being opened for two years. La Casa Azul opened in June 2012 and had hosted “more than 600 events and classroom visits have attracted award-winning authors such as Junot Diaz.” The New York Times published a blog piece in June 2012 when the bookstore first opened, detailing Ms. Anaya-Cerda’s owns this financial struggles with opening the place. She understood that certain audiences gravitate towards specific items and ideas: “You need to know where you are, what kind of people you’re serving, and what books interest them. You cannot carry just what you want to carry.” Dnainfo.com confirmed that La Casa Azul closed its doors on December 19th, 2015 in efforts to “re-design our business model to increase our social impact as a bookstore, community space, and performing arts center.” The exact location and date of the store’s reopening is unclear. And now, a dog hotel, Hotel Bark Ave, sits in its place, but the mural that served as a marker for the bookstore awkwardly remains.
This new establishment caters to a new influx of residents who see this dog hotel as important–but what about existing residents who would prefer Spanish books over sending their pet to a day hotel? Eugene Rodriguez, a playwright and longtime resident of East Harlem explains to The New York Times in 2012 his frustration over the closing of the Julia de Burgos Cultural Center: “Latino Artists have no access to Latino institutions in the neighborhood.” And despite this statement being made in the context of a different establishment being closed in East Harlem during the same year the bookstore opened, his words still hold true. The lack of institutions within East Harlem for Latino artists to perfect and project their craft is nearly obsolete. The absence of resources, in addition to increased rents are two factors that contribute to displacement of people, because they cannot afford to live as comfortably as some residents can.
Tiffany Zorilla, a resident of East Harlem, said that the café represented “escape and comfort.” She also said the bookstore was “educational. Not in the normal way in going to the bookstore to learn something, but I’m learning about the people that have been here for years. Or for some people, learning about the culture they’ve been taught to shed or be ashamed of.” Educational statistics in East Harlem are poor: “The New York City Department of Education reports that less than 27% of East Harlem and Central Harlem eighth graders were able to meet New York State standards in math and English Language Arts in 2010”–this bookstore, which provided bilingual texts and catered to its residents, certainly would have improved those rates, even if it was a marginal improvement. Yet the media did not shed light on this issue as much as it should have.
This ties back into one’s right to speak within publications, and what gets covered because this topic was not heavily publicized in popular papers. No residents of East Harlem were asked how they felt about the two spaces closing because, well, maybe this was not an important subject to be covered. It is impossible to cover every closing of a shop in the city, that is understandable. But when a neighborhood loses a crucial staple to something far less vital to its current residents, why is this not an issue? One cannot cater to everyone, but people should not be deprived of the right to speak on platform, given that they can offer insight about what it is like to be a victim of circumstances beyond their control.
Works Cited
• The, Editorial B. "Can New York be Affordable again?" New York Times Feb 07
2015, Late Edition (East Coast) ed. ProQuest. 2 May 2016 .
• Navarro, Mireya. "Segregation is an Obstacle to New York's Housing Push." New
York Times Apr 15 2016, Late Edition (East Coast) ed. ProQuest. 2 May 2016 .
• Rosenberg, Eli. "Disparate Forces Align Over Affordable Rents." New York
Times Apr 29 2014, Late Edition (East Coast) ed. ProQuest. 2 May 2016 .
• "Affordable Housing Vs. Gentrification." New York Times Nov 28 2015, Late
Edition (East Coast) ed. ProQuest. 2 May 2016 .
• Berger, Joseph. "No Longer Burning, the South Bronx Gentrifies." New York
Times Mar 26 2012, Late Edition (East Coast) ed. ProQuest. 2 May 2016 .
• Naggar, Mona E. "Frustration Over Closing of a Space in East Harlem." New
York Times Jun 26 2013, Late Edition (East Coast) ed. ProQuest. 2 May 2016 .
• Navarro, Mireya. "Tenants Worried by Plans to Build Near City Projects." New
York Times Mar 12 2013, Late Edition (East Coast) ed. ProQuest. 2 May 2016 .
• Higgins, Michelle. "Where to Next?" New York Times Feb 28 2016, Late Edition
(East Coast) ed. ProQuest. 2 May 2016 .
• Yee, Vivian. "Gentrification in a Brooklyn Neighborhood Forces Residents to
Move On." New York Times Company. Nov 27 2015. ProQuest. 2 May 2016 .
• Dawsey, Josh. "Zoning Plan is Under Fire --- New York Officials Cite
Gentrification, Density; De Blasio Aides Step Up Efforts to Sway Council." Wall
Street Journal Dec 05 2015, Eastern edition ed. ProQuest. 2 May 2016 .
• Kadet, Anne. "Metro Money: Imagining the Future of East New York." Wall
Street Journal Aug 16 2014, Eastern edition ed. ProQuest. 2 May 2016 .
• Smith, Greg B. "Gentrification Doesn't Help the Poor, Report Shows." NY Daily
News. 12 Oct. 2015. Web. 09 May 2016.
• Alcorn, Chauncey. "Harlem Activists Fight Citibike 'gateway to Gentrification'"
NY Daily News. 26 Feb. 2016. Web. 09 May 2016.
• "Community Health Profiles 2015: East Harlem." COMMUNITY HEALTH
PROFILES 2015: EAST HARLEM. 2015. Web. 9 May 2016.
With the growth of social media and the constant dominance of instagram, facebook, and twitter, women are constant victims of body-shaming, verbal abuse, and are constantly sexualized. If a woman is wearing a short skirt, or a shirt that shows cleavage she is called a slut or a skank, but if a man is wearing his pants low enough to show his underwear or enjoys taking shirtless selfies he is deemed as sexy and attractive. With social media there is almost a game of who can be deemed as sexier, a man or a woman.
I grew up in a fairly conservative household. My mother and my grandmother would look to see what I was wearing before I left the house to make sure that I was not showing too much of my body. My grandmother would tell me to cover up so that men wouldn’t stare and rub up against me. I grew up believing that it was up to us as women to make sure that we showed our confidence without showing too much. In my mind it was okay for men to be shirtless and be sexual but if a woman did it, she was loose and not a lady. I wasn’t aware of the female-shaming I was doing in my own mind. As I grow and mature into a young woman, I am starting to see the faults of my thinking, and I hope young women who partake in female-shaming and misogynistic behaviors will grow as well.
I used to believe that good feminists were the women who covered up and pushed women to do more than show their bodies. When Kim Kardashian sparked controversy with her nude photos on instagram, the thoughts that first came to mind was, “What kind of attention was she trying to get? She’s so self-obsessed, she’s so loose.” When celebrities like Emily Ratajkowski, Bella Thorne, and Ariel Winter came to Kim’s defense about women empowerment I wondered why, but as I dug deeper into the situation I noticed that it really was about giving women the right to post what they wanted. I started to realize that the world felt a woman’s body was only significant if a man was showing it but if a woman chooses to capture her own beauty, she was deemed as a whore and trashy.
Reality star and entrepreneur Kim Kardashian spoke out about the nude pictures that she had posted on instagram, after being criticized for it. “I don't do drugs, I hardly drink, I've never committed a crime—and yet I'm a bad role model for being proud of my body?" (Nessif, Bruna, E News). Kim went on to say, "I am empowered by my body. I am empowered by my sexuality. I am empowered by feeling comfortable in my skin. I am empowered by showing the world my flaws and not being afraid of what anyone is going to say about me. And I hope that through this platform I have been given, I can encourage the same empowerment for girls and women all over the world."
Amber Rose came to Kim’s defense after women such as Pink, Chloe Moretz, and Bette Midler criticized Kim for her provocative selfies. "If any sexy guy posted a nude picture with a little black strip over his private areas, everybody would be like, 'Damn, he is hot, he's sexy, look at that body. Oh, he's a dad too?'" Rose continued. "It's just a double standard." ( Heller, Corinne E news) With the controversy of Kim’s nude pictures, the conversation of feminism has reached new heights on social media. Social media has taken over our generation with materialistic values and fake realities for years, and for the first time a real issue involving women has sparked conversation all over the country.
I always had a hard time determining who was a feminist and who wasn’t. I never considered myself a feminist until I began college because it was an issue that I never really thought about. I never fully thought about the double-standard between men and women, I just accepted things as they were. As females, we (me included) break other females down who show their body in tight clothing or who wear no clothing out of discomfort and the idea that a real woman doesn’t show her body.
There is no reason why a man should be praised by women for being unclothed while a woman of any shape or size has to keep her body covered for fear of being shamed. While I still believe that Kim among other celebrities use instagram likes and attention from others to build themselves up, it still shouldn’t result in the consistent double-standard that the media constantly allows. I personally view Kim Kardashian as more of a narcissist for how she portrays herself, and I wish she talked about feminism more with the platform that she is given. Unfortunately instagram provides a platform for women to compete with each other on who has the best body and who gets the most attention, when in reality there’s more to being confident than the amount of likes and attention you get.
Women who claim to be feminists put other women down and call them out for being ‘bad feminists’ when in reality there is no right or wrong way to be a feminist. As hard as it is to believe, feminism and instagram could go hand in hand. Although it seems strange to think of instagram as a platform for feminism, as comfortable as men are with posting nude pictures and receiving praise from women, women should feel comfortable as well to praise each other and post images for themselves to build confidence in themselves and others. A prostitute, a porn star, or a supermodel who enjoys posing in the nude is not less of a feminist because her body is what she shows most. Of course I personally think women do have more to offer than their bodies and should also focus on their other gifts separate from their bodies, feminism is giving a woman the right to express herself as she pleases as long as it doesn’t hurt others.
Women like Lena Dunham are changing the way women are depicted on television through her TV show Girls. The show is about women in their twenties who are are open with their sexuality, having (lots of) sex, and many times appearing completely nude. Lena Dunham allows herself and the other actresses of the show to express themselves and doesn’t hold back, breaking the boundaries of what a woman should be even if it is sometimes ‘uncomfortable’ to watch. (Keene, Allison, Hollywood Reporter) In Girls, Dunham appears on the show naked, showing her female audiences that it is okay to love your body, no matter what size you are.
When thinking about how Dunham who is a feminist herself is breaking boundaries for women, I also go back to thinking about women like Amber Rose. Amber Rose who is a former stripper but current entrepreneur has written a book, “How to be a Bad Bitch” to inspire women to break the boundaries of what a woman should be and how to express themselves. Her book discusses sex, sex-appeal, and loving your body. Rose is constantly being called out for being a former stripper and for her provocative selfies but with the movement titled ‘Slut Walk’ she is trying to change how women are treated by pushing to them to be confident and open with their sexuality and bodies. Similar to how I feel about Kim, I still question whether Rose is using feminism to boost her popularity on instagram/twitter as many stars do. It is unfortunate that such an important topic can be used for something as trivial as likes and media attention.
Although I used to believe that women like Amber Rose and Kim Kardashian were ‘too provocative’ and ‘too sexual’ I’ve started to accept the different ways women exert confidence. Feminism is not about agreeing with everything a women does, it is about giving them the space to feel beautiful on their own terms. It is important to think critically about why young women have to cover up while men remain unaware that their entitlement to a woman’s body is in fact non-existent. It is also important to step back and realize that the female body is not something that automatically must be covered, it should be a woman’s choice whether or not she want’s to cover it.
In a superficial materialistic world where a woman’s body is constantly up for grabs by men, and where a woman’s flaws are constantly covered it is about time a woman has control over her own body. Women posting nude selfies, is not a way that I personally would exert body confidence or feminism, but feminism is about the equality of men and women on all platforms. If a man can post a nude selfie and show off his toned muscles, then a woman has the right to do the same as long as it is not aimed to hurt or make other women feel bad about themselves. The issue itself is rooted deeper than just a nude selfie, it is based on the fact that women must ask permission to receive the same treatment as men when it comes to embracing their body and sexuality. I am not fighting for Kim Kardashian, or even nude selfies, I am fighting for women to have the right to embrace their body and stop being victims and shamed for something that men can do with no problem. There needs to be equality on and off of social media between men and women, and we must teach our young boys to respect the female body whether it is clothed or unclothed.
Prompting Discussions on Social Justice Through Journalism
By Jasmine Pusser and Tricia Vuong
On the night of November 20, 2014 NYPD officer Peter Liang fired a bullet into an underlit hallway of a housing project located in East New York, Brooklyn. The bullet fatally shot an unarmed black man in a darkened stairwell. The death of the 28-year old victim, Akai Gurley, fueled the already existing nation’s outrage on racialized police brutality. In February 2016, Liang went to trial and the media coverage of this case sparked controversy amongst the Chinese-American community in New York thus causing a progression of the charges to change.
Vivian Yee from The New York Times published an article,“Indictment of New York Officer divides Chinese-Americans,” in February 2015 a few months shortly after the incident occurred. In the article, Yee opens up with the ironic beginning of Lunar New Year coinciding with the indictment manslaughter charges brought onto Liang and what it means to the Chinese community. Yee’s article in the Times was one of the first published to explore the angle of how Liang’s case contributes to the pre existing controversy of police brutality, but how this specific case caused a divide amongst a community. In May 2015, several months after Yee’s Time’s article was published, Hansi Lo Wang from NPR published a similar article, “N.Y. Police Shooting Case Divides City’s Asian-Americans." Both of the articles include quotes from residents of the Chinatown communities in Flushing, Queens and Manhattan, New York. Using quotes from community members, what both Yee and Lo Wang emphasize in their articles is the concern amongst individuals that Liang was only charged with manslaughter, and was the only police officer to shoot an unarmed black male to become charged, because he is Asian.
These articles were published in 2015, one year before the verdict from the trial came out but already there had been a community outcry. In February 2016, the jury came to a verdict and decided Peter Liang was guilty of manslaughter. The verdict caused a variety of New York news outlets to cover this topic. Sarah Maslin Nir and David W. Chen from The New York Times published the article “Many Asians Express Dismay and Frustration After Liang Verdict,” after the verdict was released. Since Liang’s indictment, individuals have rallied together in support but once the verdict read guilty, Liang wasn’t the only one left distraught according to the article. Maslin Nir and Chen state in their article that the case has “pulled at a thread long woven through the city’s Asian population, which sees what happened as yet another example of the mistreatment of a marginalized community, ill-equipped to fight back.”
In another article covering the case, Nathan Place and Thomas Tracy for The New York Daily News wrote “Supporters Rally behind Peter Liang, cop convicted in Akai Gurley’s shooting death.” The article was also written after the verdict in February 2016, and stated “Peter Liang was convicted February 11 of manslaughter and faces 15 years in prison for killing Gurley.” Similarly to the other articles writing about the case, this one also covers the rising protests of Chinese-Americans. According to another Times article written, the Liang case “marks a pivotal moment in the Asian-American community since the Rodney King riots, when dozens of Korean-American businesses were burned to the ground” (Caspian Kang).
Several months after the verdict had been read, the case took another unexpected turn of events. In April 2016 one of the jurors, Michael Vargas, had knowingly lied about his father’s criminal history thus causing the defense to reevaluate the new information to the judge. In Alan Feuer’s article for the Times, “Juror Imperils Conviction of Peter Liang; Ex-Officer, in Brooklyn Killing,” he calls this case one of the biggest police misconduct cases in recent New York history that swept up the national debate on race and law enforcement.
After the misconduct from the juror was announced, the New York Post writes “NYPD cop Peter Liang dodges prison for killing Akai Gurley.” The article states the Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Danny Chun largely followed the “no-jail recommendation of Brooklyn District Attorney Ken Thompson in sentencing ex-Officer Peter Liang to five years probation and 800 hours of community service for the death of Akai Gurley.” The jury’s finding on manslaughter was also downgraded by Chun to criminally negligent homicide. The article presents both sides of the prosecution and defense having quotes from Liang’s lawyer as well as Gurley’s girlfriend who watched him die in his arms. The article also includes a photograph of the protesters in support of Peter Liang outside the Brooklyn courthouse before his sentencing. Signs written “Peter Scapegoat, Peter Liang deserves justice, and one tragedy two victims,” are amongst the many phrases written from supporters.
As the case continues in trial nearly one year and a half after the incident, the media’s coverage does not stop either. Again in April 2016, the New York Times writes another article, “Ex-New York Officer Gets 5 Years of Probation in Fatal Brooklyn Shooting.” Feuer is the writer for this article again, days after his previous one for the publication regarding the juror. In this article, Feuer writes “The sentence-in one of the most divisive police misconduct cases in recent New York City history- came just moments after the judge took the unusual steps of ruling that the shooting was essentially an accident and reducing the jury’s verdict.” He points out that the case has been usual from the start and the sentence was a decisive move in the politically contentious case, but never fit the narrative of other killings by law-enforcement officers around the country. “It is rare for police officers even to be charged and brought to court in shooting cases; while this one resulted in a guilty verdict at a three-week trial this winter, the sentencing was deeply disappointing to the family of the victim, Akai Gurley,” Feuer said.
Similarly, the New York Daily News wrote “Judge rules ex-NYPD cop Peter Liang does not deserve new trial for killing Akai Gurley,” shortly after the verdict was changed. This article does not mention the rallying of supporters for Liang but rather states “around 200 protesters rallied against the delay of Liang’s sentencing, as well as Thompson’s recommendation he be given probation,” with the rest of the article concluded with quotes from Gurley’s family.
In the wake of Liang’s arrest, several news outlets focused on covering first hand accounts through the lens of public reaction and protest. Thousands of community members, activists and organizers alike gathered in various New York City locations throughout the impending trial and aftermath of Liang's indictment. Community leader Jack Ouyang spearheaded other members of the Chinese-American community in organizing a support group, Coalition of Justice for Liang. On February 19, 2014, the group released a statement, “We believe that Mr. Liang has been sacrificed as a scapegoat in a highly politicized criminal justice system, resulting from recent intensifying police-community relations. By protesting Officer Liang's conviction, the Coalition of Justice for Liang is demanding that NYPD must shoulder its responsibilities.”
The statement was released to several media and news outlets, and allowed journalists to gain traction in covering the movement of community reaction. New York City based magazine, The Villager, published an article five days after the Coalition of Justice for Liang released their statement. Author Ropek focused on the strong numbers in attendance, “An estimated nearly 10,000, mostly Asian-American protesters rallied in Cadman Plaza Park in Brooklyn, on Sat., Feb. 20, to voice their anger and disbelief at Liang’s conviction. Many of them passed out leaflets urging that the Supreme Court justice who oversaw the case grant a more lenient sentence for Liang.”
While members of the Asian-American community called for the exoneration of Liang, the press also focused on the juxtaposing voices of those who stood in solidarity with the neighbors and family of Akai Gurley, backed by members of the Black Lives Matter movement. The New York Times spotlighted these voices in an article titled, “Legacy of Officer Peter Liang’s Conviction Is Hard to Define” published February 12th of 2016, “Members of the Black Lives Matter movement saw the verdict as a validation of their fight in other cities in the aftermath of fatal police shootings. Brittany Packnett, a member of the planning team for Campaign Zero, another activist group, said the verdict was to be celebrated, and a product of “the collective efforts of many across the country have made citizens and the criminal justice system well aware that we demand to see justice for the fallen.” The New York Times and several other New York based news outlets continued to follow the Liang case throughout various areas of the city, inciting a nationwide discussion on the intersections of police brutality, racism and urban space.
New York press continued to cover the varying aspects of the highly politicized Liang case, several outlets capitalized on these feelings of tension and high emotion. The Asian Times released several op-eds opposing the indictment of manslaughter, calling for members of the Asian-American community to see Liang as a scapegoat for systemic corruption and police brutality. An op-ed for the Asia Times titled, Peter Liang is unlucky to be an Asian New York cop, Dr. George Koo wrote, “Asians along with Latinos and Blacks are on the same side of the racial divide not on opposite sides. The injustice is white vs. all the colored minorities. Liang is unlucky to become a cause celebre just when the emotional cauldron is at full boil.” On April 19, 2016, Curtis Sliwa, a writer for the New York Post posted an opinion editorial in response to Liang’s final verdict titled, “Peter Liang ruling is a travesty.” Sliwa wrote, “The district attorney and Judge Danny Chun enabled Liang because he got five years’ probation and 800 hours of community service. The two cops, the police union, the DA and the judge are hopelessly wrong. Liang should have been sentenced to seven years of hard time in a state penitentiary so that this might never happen again.” The shooting of Akai Gurley addressed deeper, more insidious issues minority communities had with New York Police Department. New York publications played a lead role in bringing these viewpoints to light, fostering a citywide discussion among viewership.
Data taken in 2015 indicated that 97% of officers involved in cases of police violence were not charged with a crime. Journalistic coverage of police violence is vital in creating public awareness, especially in urban spaces where certain formulas of crime often go unreported. Media outlets carry immense power in bringing issues to the forefront. The lens of urban study includes viewing urban spaces critically, especially when it comes to crime and crime coverage. Reporting in urban spaces hold great implications in the movement for change, reaching the inhabitants and policies of the city. The Liang trial exposed error in the New York Police Department's systematic treatment of crime, especially in low-income communities. Journalism can play a crucial role in highlighting the catalysts of change within these power structures. The Black Lives Matter movement as well as the Asian American community continued an ongoing fight for minority rights throughout the Liang trial, using the media as a platform for coverage.
The New York Times website has a beat dedicated solely to stories on, “Police Brutality, Misconduct and Shootings.” The section covers national stories as well as those centric to New York City. Article “If Police Stairwell Shooting was Accidental, Circumstances Around It Were Not,” by crime reporter Alan Feuer addressed the politics of police coverage in urban spaces in the wake of the Liang trial, “But if the killing of Mr. Gurley was a kind of crime of chance, what of the conditions that preceded and permitted it? Would a private building on the Upper East Side have had an elevator persistently out of service as was the case at the Louis H. Pink Houses in East New York? Would the stairwell lights in such a building have been broken? Would armed officers — one of them with his gun drawn — have been on patrol inside?” Publications like the New York Times and the New York Daily News followed the preceding case over the span of two years, as it affected community members all throughout the various Manhattan boroughs. Coverage followed protest throughout the city, from Chinatown to City Hall, often landing in Brooklyn, the site of the shooting and trial. The Liang case served as a representation of the issues within its surrounding urban space; class, race, politics, lives and law were all up for discussion.
Urban Journalism can work to create strides in city wide change, in the case of Peter Liang, tensions between arising communities meant that reporters were stepping foot into vulnerable situations. Crime coverage in urban spaces can carry the weight of having detrimental effects, such as the case of The Central Park Five, often cited as a miscarriage of justice perpetrated by faulty journalism. Voices from both sides were heard throughout the Liang case, and the city functioned as debating ground in addressing police brutality and crime in urban spaces. The death of Akai Gurley left a community reeling in pain, and the trauma that stems from police brutality is a sentiment echoed throughout the nation. The voices showcased throughout several urban publications in the Liang case were for the most part immensely intersectional, and imparted the opportunity for journalists to ethically illustrate the retelling of minority stories.
Works Cited:
Alan Feuer. "Juror Imperils Conviction of Peter Liang, Ex-Officer, in Brooklyn Killing." The New York Times (2016): n. pag. Web. 10 May 2016.
Alan Feuer. "Ex-New York Officer Gets 5 Years of Probation in Fatal Brooklyn Shooting." The New York Times (2016): n. pag. Web. 10 May 2016.
Jay Caspian Kang. "How Should Asian-Americans Feel About the Peter Liang Protests?" The New York Times (2016): n. pag. Web. 10 May 2016.
Koo, George. "Peter Liang Is Unlucky to Be an Asian New York Cop." Asia Times. Top Writers China, 15 Feb. 2016. Web. 11 May 2016.
Chelsea Rose Marcius, and Stephen Rex Brown. "Judge Rules Ex-NYPD Cop Peter Liang Does Not Deserve New Trial for Killing Akai Gurley." The New York Daily News (2016): n. pag. Web. 10 May 2016.
Sarah Maslin Nir, and David W. Chen. "Many Asians Express Dismay and Frustration After Liang Verdict." The New York Times (2016): n. pag. Web. 10 May 2016.
Emily Saul, Kevin Fasick, and Kate Sheehy. "NYPD Cop Peter Liang Dodges Prison for Killing Akai Gurley." The New York Post (2016): n. pag. Web. 10 May 2016.
Mapping Police Violence. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May 2016. <http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/>.
Nathan Place, and Thomas Tracy. "Supporters Rally behind Peter Liang, Cop Convicted in Akai Gurley’s Shooting Death." The New York Daily News (2016): n. pag. Web. 10 May 2016.
Ouyang, Jack. "Chinese Americans in More Than 30 Cities to Rally for Justice for Ex-NYPD Officer Peter Liang." Chinese Americans in More Than 30 Cities to Rally for Justice for Ex-NYPD Officer Peter Liang. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May 2016.
Ropek, Lucas. "Asian Pols, Protesters Demand Leniency for Liang." The Villager Newspaper. The Villager, 26 Feb. 2016. Web. 11 May 2016.
Sliwa, Curtis. "Peter Liang Ruling Is a Travesty: Curtis Sliwa." New York Post. New York Post, 19 Apr. 2016. Web. 11 May 2016.
Hansi Lo Wang. "N.Y. Police Shooting Case Divides City's Asian-Americans." NPR (2015): n. pag. Web. 10 May 2016.
Wilson, Michael. "Legacy of Officer Peter Liang’s Conviction Is Hard to Define." The New York Times. The New York Times, 12 Feb. 2016. Web. 11 May 2016.
Vivian Yee. "Indictment of New York Officer Divides Chinese-Americans." The New York Times (2015): n. pag. Web. 10 May 2016.
annaxmalina
vaporwave
andulkaphoto
discoholicmusic
turnnoffyourmind
blakekathryn
theartofmadeline