The Georgetown Voice, 3/24/23

KENNETH BOND, FREED AFTER 27 YEARS, STILL FIGHTING FOR EXONERATION

By Graham Krewinghaus

MARCH 24, 2023

HOW EMBRACING SEXUAL FLUIDITY CAN LIBERATE QUEER SEXUALITY

By Lou Jacquin

HUGHLANDER DEMONSTRATES VULNERABILITY ON DEMO NIGHTS.

By Annabella Hoge and Franziska Wild

6 news D.C. residents, officials defend home rule with “Hands Off DC” ALEX DERAMO AND SABRINA SHAFFER

7 news Kenneth Bond, freed after 27 years, still fighting for exoneration GRAHAM KREWINGHAUS 8 features ChatGPT is not the end of written integrity

"In class we talk about Plato’s Cave. The people in the cave, looking at the wall. Now, you know, to be able to be free and see the actual images, not just the shadows on the wall … that’s what it’s like to be free."

PG. 7

Georgetown, change your colors EDITORIAL

13 sports

Editor-In-Chief Annabella Hoge

Managing Editor Nora Scully

internal resources

Executive Editor for Resources, Diversity, and Inclusion Ajani Jones

Editor for Sexual Violence Advocacy and Coverage Sarah Craig

Service Chair Aminah Malik

Social Chair Connor Martin

news

Executive Editor Joanna Li

Features Editor Franziska Wild

News Editor Graham Krewinghaus

Assistant News Editors Yihan Deng, Alex Deramo, Amber Xie

opinion

Executive Editor Kulsum Gulamhusein

Voices Editor Lou Jacquin

Assistant Voices Editors Barrett Ahn, Ella Bruno, Andrea Ho

Editorial Board Chair Alec Weiker

Editorial Board William Hammond, Annette Hasnas, Andrea Ho, Annabella Hoge, Jupiter Huang, Paul James, Connor Martin, Allison O'Donnell, Sarah Watson, Max Zhang

leisure

Executive Editor Adora Adeyemi

Leisure Editor Maya Kominsky

Assistant Editors Pierson Cohen, Cole Kindiger, Hailey Wharram

Halftime Editor Francesca Theofilou

Assistant Halftime Editors Eileen Chen, Caroline Samoluk, Zachary Warren

sports

Executive Editor Nicholas Riccio

Sports Editor Lucie Peyrebrune

Assistant Editors Andrew Arnold, Thomas Fischbeck, Ben Jakabcsin

Halftime Editor Jo Stephens

Assistant Halftime Editors Bradshaw Cate, Sam Lynch, Henry Skarecky

design

Executive Editor Dane Tedder

Design Editor Connor Martin

Spread Editors Olivia Li, Sabrina Shaffer

Cover Editor Grace Nuri

Assistant Design Editors Cecilia Cassidy, Madeleine Ott

copy

Copy Chiefs Donovan Barnes, Maanasi Chintamani

Assistant Copy Editors Chetan Dokku, Shajaka Shelton

multimedia

Podcast Executive Producer Jillian Seitz

Podcast Editor Livia de Queiroz Brito

Assistant Podcast Editor Romy Abu-Fadel

Photo Editor Jina Zhao

online

Website Editor Tyler Salensky

Social Media Editor Allison DeRose

Assistant Social Media Editor Ninabella Arlis

business

General Manager Megan O’Malley

Assistant Manager of Accounts and Sales Rovi Yu

Assistant Manager of Alumni and Outreach Horace Wong

support

Contributing Editors Lucy Cook, Deborah Han, Annette Hasnas, Margaret Hartigan, Tim Tan, Sarah Watson, Max Zhang

Staff Contributors Meriam Ahmad, Angelena Bougiamas, Elyza Bruce, Nicholas Budler, Romita Chattaraj, Leon Cheung, Elin Choe, Erin Ducharme, Nikki Farnham, Alex Giorno, Ethan Greer, Paul James, Christine Ji, Julia Kelly, Sofia Kemeny, Ashley Kulberg, David McDaniels, Insha Momin, Amelia Myre, Natalia Porras, Owen Posnett, Daniel Rankin, Carlos Rueda, Ryan Samway, Michelle Serban, Elizabeth Short, Sagun Shrestha, Lukas Soloman, Isabelle Stratta, Sophie Tafazzoli, Amelia Wanamaker, Andrew Swank, Fallon Wolfley, Amanda Yen, Nadine Zakheim

“fluid emotions”

GRACE NURI

BOARD

Page 3

An eclectic collection of jokes, puns, doodles, playlists, and news clips from the collective mind of the Voice staff.

Can't get enough of cherry blossoms this week? Try this word puzzle! Each blossom contains mixed-up letters that make words when unscrambled. Your job is to place every blossom's letters into the rows, each with its own hint. But be careful! The same blossom can unscramble to make multiple words, and multiple words can fit in some rows. There is only one solution, and when you're done, you should be left with a secret phrase. Have fun and may your luck "bloom!"

Hidden Phrase: Which First Lady accepted D.C.'s first official cherry trees?

CLUES:

1. Porcelain

2. Nomadic Theater animal

3. Mountainous Asian country

4. Color of envy

5. Sender of D.C.’s cherry trees

6. Airborne vehicle

7. Type of bean

8. AC/DC song, “Back in” this

9. Slim piece of land jutting out into water

10. Bronze medalist place

→ WHAT DOES MILF STAND FOR?

1. Man, I Love Francesca (see the Leisure masthead)

2. Margaret Irish, Lou French

3. Me? I Like Frogs!

4. Magazine Is Like, Freaky

5. Mice In Large Flasks??

6. Maybe… I Like Feet ;)

7. Maybe I Lwantto Fuckyourmom

→ D & A: IT'S IN OUR GENES!

Annie: "I'm an artist. Imagine what I could do with an iPad!"

Dane: "Watch baby sensory videos?"

Spring has finally sprung—it’s the most joyous time of year for a FILF (Fucker I’d Like to Fuck) like me. It’s mating season, and while I’m always feeling frisky, there’s something about the copious pollen in the air that sends me into overdrive when I scour our fine campus searching for mates. The mouse on your floor in SW Quad? Divine. The three rats you saw on your weekend trip to Cabo? We had a little (but no less massively scrumptious) romp in the sewers last week. Me, my humongous bee-donk bee-donks, and my itty-bitty bazongas are on the prowl. Get ready for the summer swarm as me and thousands of soon-to-beborn progeny fill the streets.

Check out this week’s Post Pitch episode to hear the Editorial Board’s Andrea Ho discuss Georgetown’s school colors with Assistant Podcast Editor Romy Abu-Fadel using the QR code:

→ NICK'S CHERRY BLOSSOM CROSSWORD

→ TUNE IN TO PODCASTS

→ GOSSIP RAT

Though he is typically a private person, Quarles articulates his experiences with grief after losing his grandfather and a difficult breakup on demo nights., which dropped on March 17. This is the first of three albums Quarles has been working on since his 2021 debut album Dusty Orange—from which demo nights. is a “giant step [up].”

HUGHLANDER allows Quarles the space for public vulnerability. “HUGHLANDER is definitely a place where I get to be my most authentic self and put it out in the world,” Quarles said.

An artist, producer, designer, director, and vocalist from Kentucky, Quarles has become a fixture in Georgetown’s student creative community through his collaboration with other artists. With demo nights.—a predecessor to the upcoming demo days.—Quarles shows that HUGHLANDER is not only an outlet for artistic expression but a community-connected platform for emotional processing. demo nights. calls the tracks “sounds that are still in process”—and well-produced, the tracks entrenched in sonic layering. Deep vulnerability is the album’s lyrical and sonic foundation: “The majority of the album, 16 songs, is [about me going] through this grieving process and also learning so much about myself as a man. And also why I love the way I do and why it’s so hard,” Quarles said.

The 17-track album asks listeners to stumble through shock, frustration, sadness, and reflection to reach a kind of closure that accepts that healing doesn’t always sound perfect.

Quarles constructs an innovative parallel between the complexity of grief and the music itself—the emotional variety of the grieving process translates into the album's stylistic and spans multiple genres, as Quarles deftly switches between sounds like rock, rap, spoken sampling, and indie pop, each sound inflected with a different feeling.

Often these are emotions he doesn’t normally feel comfortable expressing in his dayto-day life. “dakota,” for instance, opens with an angry voicemail from him about his ex, which suddenly cuts out and is replaced by a deep bass and a chaotic mixture of vocal layers with lyrics like, “never got my closure / how my clothes fit you now that you’re settled with a three?”

“‘dakota’ is a very antithetical version of what people see Malachi as,” Quarles said. Indeed, the song’s dark tone even uses profanity Quarles normally avoids.

Despite its personal origins, demo nights. was crafted in community. The record is seeped in collaborations with other Georgetown artists— Kendall Bryant (MSB ’23), Katelyn Barr (SFS ’22), Bella Carlucci (CAS ’23), Amanda Estevez (CAS ’23), and Kian Blewett (SFS ’23), among others, make appearances (the sweetest among them Riley, Quarles’ dog, and her squeaky toy on “GEPPETTO.”) The feature-heavy nature and the album’s timing—released mere months before graduation—makes demo nights. an

“I wanted it to be my last hurrah,” Quarles said. “I’m leaving Georgetown. I wanted it to be making music with all the people I haven’t

Bringing campus artists together proved an ingenious choice, as demo . is impressively multilayered.

HUGHLANDER’s style at times seems like a mashup between ’90s grunge and ’90s rap, playing with repetition, echoes, and tempo on songs like “feelings from a fling,” punk guitar riffs on “SCURRED,” and warped rock sounds on “Control” featuring Barr. From the opening track, “aginnn (Warhol’s Theme)” with RASHAAD, Quarles layers guitar and distorted sounds, playing with studio

techniques to establish the dynamic tone of the album. “Storm,” featuring KENDALL! (Bryant’s alias), includes a funky bassline, vocal layering, and a light percussive beat creating a groovier sound. In contrast, “ms. understood” interweaves emotional and sonic layers, playing with sound distortion while Estevez’s vocals float above the track, their sounds overlapping, mirroring the relationship Quarles is explaining.

Quarles doesn’t just fit other artists’ contributions into his existing sound; he fosters a space for himself and his peers to create at a university that he feels doesn’t support them. “Georgetown as, like, an institution—it's hard to make music,” Quarles said. “There’s not a really collective ‘I want to be a musician,’ or ‘I am a musician.’”

Grappling with this landscape has been key to Quarles’ growth as an artist and person; in December 2022, he hosted a concert entitled “HUGH’S ROOM” to make Georgetown’s student musicians more visible, specifically those of color.

“The whole lineup was people of color and I don’t think I did that intentionally, but that was super cool,” Quarles said. “I wanted to have a concert to say that I did that on Georgetown’s campus, and make it something that was more than just us in McNeir Hall.”

The revelation of oft-hidden layers that HUGHLANDER provides is Quarles’ benediction. Quarles excels in vulnerability on the album, as best demonstrated on tracks like “annette*” and “solo” featuring Kian. The former includes gentle piano accompanied by brutally honest lines such as “I can’t look at you and not love, not love you.”

But despite the frustration and heartache of the album, there’s a sweetness to its resolution. The album closes with “an ode to papa,” dedicated to Quarles’ grandfather. It is meditative and bright, with a repeated motif expressing the cyclical nature of processing loss. “an ode to papa” resolves the album but as a stunning instrumental track, sonically leaves the space for grief to return, as it always does— something that almost sounds like closure.

When journeying through demo nights., Quarles hopes listeners approach the work with open ears, embracing it as a journey of self-discovery.

“Go into it like you aren’t listening to an album by Malachi,” he said. “Just experience a person learning who they are.” G

VOICE’S CHOICES: dakota, annette*, Storm

HUGHLANDER demonstrates demo nights.

Miguel Wilson is reinventing wedding fashion—because it’s his day, too

BY EILEEN CHEN AND AJANI JONES

Fashion is far more than just the clothes we wear. At its core, it’s a vessel for imaginative feats of self-expression and a conduit for social change. Equipped with a philosophy of activism through fashion, fashion designer and philanthropist Miguel Wilson has challenged the boundaries of men’s formalwear.

Born and raised in Washington, D.C., Wilson is an award-winning fashion designer specializing in men’s event and formalwear. While he has styled his fair share of high-profile clientele—including 2 Chainz and Lil Wayne—the foundation of Wilson’s design work is exemplified through his self-titled wedding line, the Miguel Wilson Collection. The collection’s slogan, “Because it’s his day too,” reveals his focus on grooms’ fashion with the primary goal of celebrating the groom on his special day.

On Jan. 18, Wilson’s signature designs were center stage in the historic inauguration of Gov. Wes Moore, Maryland’s first Black governor and only the third elected Black governor in U.S. history. Wilson told the Voice that in approaching the occasion, he wanted to ensure the governor looked his absolute best, a process significantly directed by the vision of First Lady Dawn Moore, as he recognized that this event carried historical significance far beyond himself.

“It was very meticulous, very thought out, and planned in how it would look that day. And I would say that the end result was very presidential,” Wilson said.

For Wilson, no other event has been as consequential: “I don’t know that there’s anything that compares.”

Wilson brings this philosophy of personalization and client collaboration to all of his work. He entered the wedding fashion industry in 2011 after observing that, from the glamorous shopping process to the gown, the bride is often highlighted at the cost of the groom. After all, it’s not Say Yes To The Suit.

“Brides typically have a much better experience in terms of shopping for their gowns,” Wilson said. “I wanted to offer grooms a similar experience, as well as nicer options and attire for weddings.”

Wilson wants to challenge how, due to industry and social standards, grooms are usually less invested in their wedding attire’s sentimentality. A bride’s gown often remains a keepsake long after her wedding; in contrast, grooms are more likely to simply rent a tuxedo.

“The groom shouldn’t be the one looking like he’s just a visitor when in fact it’s his day too,” Wilson said.

His outlook has resonated with many, as the collection has been met with warm reception; with

four store locations, business is booming, says Wilson. But the success of the Miguel Wilson Collection did not come without its share of obstacles.

designer began in 1993—he filed for bankruptcy after over a decade in business, in 2011. He’s since had to reflect on and learn from his mistakes while rebuilding and rebranding his company. One of the most valuable takeaways he’s had is realizing the importance of providing quality service, beyond just clothes shopping.

offer another key aspect of wedding preparations—a chance for the groom and his guests to bond. The stores have a “groom’s lounge” allowing the husband-to-be to relish in the experience of shopping, complete with complimentary drinks. The day is capped off with a “roast and toast,” a session of lighthearted jokes and odes to the groom. Wilson intentionally curates every detail of the groom’s consultation, from beginning to end, to embody that spirit of joy he believes should accompany such a momentous occasion.

“Not too often do men get a chance to hear their friends tell them how proud they are of them, how much they love each other,” he said. “That, to me, is one of the best things I’ve ever created.”

Wilson’s design philosophy centers care for his clients and intentionally prioritizes identifying and creatively rectifying the existing pitfalls within men’s fashion. He prides himself on pushing the boundaries of typical men’s fashion, encouraging his clientele to experiment beyond their comfort zone, especially when it comes to incorporating color.

“If you go through most men’s closets, you’ll see them be inundated with black, grays, and blues,” Wilson said. “One of the things I do is create clothing and looks incorporating color in ways most men don’t realize can work for them, until they wear it.”

Another hallmark of Wilson’s style is a poloesque design, a remnant of the impact his poloplaying had. He mentioned that as a child, the opportunity he had to ride horses was a privilege many of his peers weren’t afforded.

“Understanding how fortunate I was to be able to have horses to help change my

still underappreciated and underrepresented in the fashion industry. In 2020, only four percent of the members of the Council of Fashion Designers of America were Black. Wilson hopes that by creating a high-end formalwear brand, he can contribute to the positive representation of Black artists in the fashion industry.

“Generally, we don’t associate Black designers with luxury. That, to me, is a problem,” Wilson said. “So what I’ve done is made a calculated effort to change that narrative by creating luxury events and things in which other Black designers can be a part of things in front of, and see their things in front of, a crowd that buys a luxury.”

Through organizing and hosting events like the Atlanta Fashion & Polo Classic, an annual luxury event celebrating culture and fashion, Wilson hopes to continue to platform and celebrate the work of Black designers.

“We can create, develop, and design high-end clothing, because, at the end of the day, the African American market is really what defined what luxury is to begin with,” he added. “So if we can define it, then we can also create it.” G

D.C. residents, officials defend home rule with

HANDS OFF DC

BY ALEX DERAMO AND SABRINA SHAFFER

Asharp increase in congressional interference in D.C. affairs over the last few weeks has sparked a high-stakes fight for D.C. statehood and local autonomy after a vote in Congress to overturn the District’s revised criminal code. On March 8, statehood activists and elected officials gathered to speak out against their lack of independence at the “Hands Off DC” rally outside Union Station. U.S. Capitol Police arrested at least 17 protesters during the subsequent march on Capitol Hill, including U.S. Shadow Representative of the District Dr. Oye Owolewa.

The rally was organized by a coalition of D.C. statehood advocacy groups, including DC Vote, DC Justice Lab, and Don’t Mute DC, in reaction to the congressional disapproval resolution. Congress sought to overturn the long-awaited overhaul of D.C.’s criminal code that would expand rights to a jury trial for misdemeanor crimes and reduce maximum penalties for certain violent crimes, among other significant changes.

Under the 1973 District of Columbia Home Rule Act, D.C. Council legislation requires congressional approval before becoming law. The Senate passed the congressional resolution on March 8, marking the first time Congress has successfully voted to overturn D.C. law in over 30 years. President Joe Biden then signed into law a measure blocking the D.C. Council’s criminal code on March 20.

Owolewa said in an interview with the Voice that he risked arrest via civil disobedience during the rally to highlight the importance of D.C. autonomy and give D.C. residents their voice back.

“I joined the protest, and I was the only elected official in D.C. to get arrested, to really put it on the line and risk our freedom so D.C. residents can enjoy theirs,” he said.

Historically, Congress has chosen to respect D.C.’s right to self-governance and has only introduced seven disapproval resolutions in the last 50 years. The current Congress, however,

has attempted to overturn D.C. legislation twice in the last several weeks: first on Feb. 9 opposing a bill that would extend local voting rights to noncitizens, and again on March 8 targeting the revised criminal code.

Owolewa stressed that while both bills were somewhat controversial for many members of Congress, the issue at hand isn’t one for partisan politics.

“There has been a lot of debate, and I appreciate that, but it belongs to D.C. residents. It doesn’t belong to Congress. It doesn’t belong to the president to put his thumb down,” he said.

The crime bill passed the D.C. City Council unanimously twice; first to send the bill to Mayor Muriel Bowser, who vetoed, and second to override the veto.

Kelsye Adams, director of programming at DC Vote, expressed her frustration with the District’s lack of statehood. “The biggest issue is that we should be able to represent ourselves, and we have elected officials that we chose and trust to make decisions on our behalf, and they are not allowed due to congressional [interference],” she said. DC Vote is a citizen engagement and advocacy group that organizes pro-statehood initiatives such as the “Hands Off DC” rally.

Owolewa sent a letter to the White House on Feb. 20 urging Biden to use his veto power to halt the congressional veto and return lawmakers’ focus back to national issues. In response, Biden sent a letter reassuring Owolewa of his support of D.C. autonomy.

“Taxation without representation and denial of self-governance are an affront to our Nation’s founding values. That is why my Administration strongly supports making Washington, D.C. a state and providing its residents with long-overdue full representation in Congress. Doing so will make our Nation stronger, fairer, and more just,” Biden wrote to Owolewa in an official correspondence with the White House that he shared with the Voice

Within 24 hours of the arrival of Biden’s letter to Owolewa, however, Biden tweeted that he would not use his veto power and would sign Congress’ bill to overturn D.C. Council legislation. According to Owolewa, Biden erred in greenlighting federal intervention into D.C. affairs, contradicting his claim to support D.C. statehood.

“[Biden] put things on a scale. He put Fox News and headlines on one side of the scale and put D.C. voting rights on the other,” Owolewa said. “He seemed to favor and pay more attention and prioritize winning headlines, not looking soft on crime, than he really did looking into the facts of this bill and looking into the autonomy of D.C. residents.”

“We just weren’t priority enough to him,” he added.

To Adams, Biden’s signature would have serious implications for the democratic process. The precedent would not, however, slow Adams from advocating for D.C.’s selfgovernance.

“We’ll keep hitting the floor each and every day until we have [statehood],” Adams said. “So the only impact that I would say this movement is going to have is that it may have to fight harder.”

Adams urged all residents of the District to follow the work of “Hands Off DC,” regardless of their political affiliation. “It’s truly nonpartisan because it doesn’t matter who you are. If you decide to live in D.C., you won’t be making decisions for yourself.”

Owolewa plans to continue speaking out on issues like D.C. statehood. He hopes to see more supporters lobbying for change and pushing other states to champion the cause and speak to their Congress members.

“I also want to remind folks out there that regardless of what bills we passed or whether they agree with it or not, this isn’t about the bill. This is about D.C. residents having final say over their laws and having final say over our budget and our resources,” he said. “We’re not trying to be treated better. We want to be treated the same.” G

Kenneth Bond, freed after 27 years, still fighting for exoneration

BY GRAHAM KREWINGHAUS

Even when his credits didn’t count toward a degree, even when he was staring down a sentence of life plus 60 years for a crime he didn’t commit, Kenneth Bond took as many classes as he could. He tried just about everything offered at Jessup Correctional Institution, from mediation training to science to ethics.

“A lot of professors like to bring ethics courses into prison, understandably,” Bond told me, chuckling.

Bond can look back with levity now because he’s no longer in Jessup, where he was held for the majority of his adult life—instead, he’s sitting in a Healy classroom following a day exploring campus with his family. After 27 years, Bond was released from prison last month. He attributes much of the credit for his release to students in Georgetown’s Making an Exoneree (MAE) class, which released his story as a documentary and advocated for his exoneration.

“A lot of things that came out in my case that ultimately, I believe, will prove my innocence and get me exonerated, were things that came out of that program,” Bond said of his experience working with MAE.

Bond was in the initial cohort of subjects when the class was first offered in 2018. Incarcerated people that believe they have a case for wrongful conviction can send their information to Georgetown’s Prisons and Justice Initiative (PJI), which hand-picks cases for the class to tackle. The students then investigate the case and produce a short documentary to prove their subject’s innocence and push for exoneration with an awareness campaign. Bond was the fifth MAE subject to be released from prison since the program started.

Bond didn’t send his case to PJI like most subjects, though—they already had it. PJI director Marc Howard taught a class Bond took in Jessup in 2014, and had since been working on his case as

The students assigned to Bond’s case were Nada Eldaief (SFS ’18), Cassidy Jensen (CAS ’18), and Julia Usiak (CAS ’19). For their documentary, they spoke with Bond, his family and friends, the crucial eyewitness that falsely tied him to the scene of the shooting, and a ballistics expert to analyze evidence used against Bond at trial.

“We actually went to the crime scene, and we got to go to Baltimore a few times and talk to his family members,” Eldaief said. “And we were lucky, too, because we got to actually go into Jessup where Kenneth was at the time, and spend some time talking to him in person. That was really special.”

The students found and documented several critical flaws in the original trial. For one, Bond’s conviction hinged on a lone eyewitness, who later recanted his identification of Bond and said he hadn’t been sure. Additionally, the science that matched the extractor marks on casings from the scene with bullets found in Bond’s home was flimsy even at the time, and would not be permitted in trial today. Nonetheless, the jury convicted Bond, and the judge sentenced him to life plus 60 years in 1997. He was only 16 years old.

“What surprised me the most was how any jury could look at Kenneth’s case and think that, beyond a reasonable doubt, he was guilty of this crime,” Eldaief said.

The students’ documentary captured the attention of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project (MIAP) and Cooley LLP, who joined Howard on Bond’s legal team pro bono. In 2020, they sent Bond’s case to Baltimore City’s Conviction Integrity Unit (CIU), which reinvestigates old convictions.

“But then a pandemic happened, so everything got shut down, and they weren’t able to work on the case,” Bond said. “So, I waited.”

While Bond was waiting for the CIU to conclude its investigation and reach a finding, Maryland passed the Juvenile Restoration Act (JRA) into law. Bond had earned significant time off through good behavior, including taking classes through the unaccredited lecture series at

Jessup and later the University of Baltimore’s Second Chance College Program. That made him a textbook candidate for the JRA, which shortens the sentences of candidates who’ve served at least 20 years for offenses that occurred when they were minors.

“Based off all the things that I accomplished, work history and education and all, they wanted my case to be one of the first cases for the [JRA]. But I decided to wait, I put it off because I was expecting the integrity unit to exonerate me,” Bond said. “The prosecutor of Baltimore City told me to hold on, wait for that. But I couldn’t wait any longer.”

Release via the JRA meant a much longer wait before exoneration—the process of officially clearing his name—but Bond was ready to be free nonetheless. He went forward with the JRA release, and a judge shortened his sentence to 40 years, which dropped to 27 when they factored in time off for good behavior that he’d earned by working and taking classes. Having served 27 years already, Bond left prison on Feb. 9 and was met by his sister, Howard, a number of PJI staff, and current MAE students.

He still has five years on parole and looks forward to the day the CIU officially clears his name. “It shouldn’t be long. This year or next, I should definitely be exonerated,” Bond said. PJI, MIAP, and Cooley are still working to secure it.

But in the meantime, he said, he’s thrilled to be out. He’s finishing his University of Baltimore degree, applying for master’s programs in psychology, and trying to be a mentor to his grandchildren when he’s not at school. Most of all, he’s enjoying his freedom.

“Having that life sentence off you is like removing a thousand-pound weight,” Bond said. “In class we talk about Plato’s Cave. The people in the cave, looking at the wall. Now, you know, to be able to be free and see the actual images, not just the shadows on the wall … that’s what it’s like

BY KULSUM GULAMHUSEIN

When the first capable version of ChatGPT was released in November 2022, professors across the internet bemoaned the death of the undergraduate essay as a method to assess students. The Atlantic called the moment a “textpocalypse” and a writer from The New York Times said he was “deeply unsettled” following a conversation with Bing’s integrated AI chatbot. ChatGPT, unlike earlier chatbots, has the capacity to generate coherent, long-form writing.

ChatGPT has upended what it means to write. But, upon further analysis, it may not be the gamechanger for writing or other industries that the world initially envisioned. Already, AI is present in academic spaces through functions like Grammarly and spellcheck according to Phil Sandick, assistant professor and interim director of the Writing Center. Academia and college admissions will likely move away from formulaic writing tasks where ChatGPT could dominate, but it may become a useful tool in the workplace and in conserving energy for select tasks.

While ChatGPT differs from other AI in that it can write complete essays, Jacques Berlinerblau, the Rabbi Harold White Chair in Jewish Civilization, believes that ChatGPT cannot imitate the many kinds of collegiate-level essays required to succeed at Georgetown.

“Can it generate a cluster of facts that are fairly accurate and sequence those facts in a way that seems like it’s a human being? I think sure,” Berlinerblau said. “Can it write creatively? No. Can it write with sparkle and dash and personality? I’m going to say no, there’s no way.”

According to Berlinerblau, writing professors often look for voice and process in written assignments, elements expressed through multiple drafts and revisions of the same essay—skills beyond the capabilities of any existing AI chatbot.

“Most of my classes utilize case studies and case methods and the Socratic method,” Jennifer Logg, an assistant MSB professor, said. “I’m asking over and over again how are we going to take what we just learned and apply it to the situation, and that’s outside of the boundaries of ChatGPT.”

In small intro-level classes like Sandick’s WRIT-015 or SFS proseminars like Berlinerblau’s, professors work so closely with students that it’s easier to tell when an essay’s voice changes because a section wasn’t written by a student, or when the tone of an essay shifts from previous ones.

One hallmark of inauthentic essays may be the citations students use: specifically, whether they’re correct. ChatGPT tends to easily blend in information, making it hard for professors to identify citations. “One thing I think about with any kind of citation is does the voice change?” Sandick said.

Berlinerblau conceded that assignments in his upper-level Jewish Civilization and

Government listed class could be vulnerable to AI-generated content because he doesn’t track a student’s writing across the semester, but was confident that he could not be fooled by ChatGPT in a class where he becomes intimately familiar with a student’s writing voice. “It would be really dangerous to do this [use ChatGPT] in a writing class,” Berlinerblau said. Although the university has yet to decide whether using ChatGPT is plagiarism, according to the Student Advocacy Office, students have been written up by professors for using it in their writing. Some Georgetown programs may be more susceptible to ChatGPT’s capabilities, however. Sandick has previously taught writing programs where ChatGPT could easily complete the formulaic tasks assigned. Curious to see if this would apply at Georgetown, Sandick fed ChatGPT a prompt for an exploratory essay about the writing process and assessed it in WRIT-015 class discussions.

“I thought it didn’t really didn’t do any of the things I asked for,” said Sandick, noting that the essay didn’t get beyond any surfacelevel arguments or construct a narrative, something expected of students.

When listing facts or accomplishments without analysis is sufficient, ChatGPT can probably do the job, but where students are trying to share their voice or conduct higher-level analysis, most professors believe ChatGPT just isn’t sophisticated enough.

Even if a student isn’t taking a writingintensive class, using ChatGPT still comes at a cost to their learning, according to Edward Maloney, executive director of the Center for

New Designs in Learning and Scholarship and a faculty member in the Graduate Program of Learning Design and Technology. He sees a danger in using ChatGPT to summarize information students haven’t actually engaged with.

“You could get a summary from ChatGPT and it may or may not be right, but how are you going to know if you haven’t read the material?” Maloney said. “If you immediately go from question to ChatGPT to answer, then you’re missing some steps.”

While ChatGPT might help a student pretend to be familiar with a topic by quickly explaining a concept, it cannot do all of the work. ChatGPT is imperfect in determining the truthfulness of information because it draws on all of the information on the internet—regardless of if it is true—which could leave students turning in error-ridden assignments.

“With a tool like this, you still have to evaluate and decide what is good and what is bad,” Maloney said, “So if you don’t have the skill set and what you’re doing is relying on the shorthand answer without the ability to judge the value of that shorthand answer, then you’re putting yourself at a disadvantage because you’re also not learning what it means to evaluate the information that you got.”

As a pattern analysis tool, for example in a search engine, integrating ChatGPT could help to highlight the most popular answers to web searches and draw out connections between information according to Logg who sees web-browser-integrated chatbots functioning as a histogram showing which information appears in search results most often and is the most relevant.

Some professors believe ChatGPT detracts from the transferable skills universities are designed to impart on students. Students have reported using ChatGPT to summarize lengthy reading assignments, but Jonathan Brown, the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization, believes that is detrimental to the student’s learning.

“If you’re a student, you have to ask yourself, what is it you want out of university?” Brown said. “Students have to decide if they want ChatGPT to do that for them or if they want to learn.”

But the impact of ChatGPT goes beyond the college classroom; some high school students have reported using ChatGPT for college admissions essays, leading to concerns the bot could threaten the usefulness of essays as a tool for admissions. To test this, Georgetown admissions officers reviewed five essays assembled by the Voice responding to the College of Arts and Sciences’ essay prompt: “What does it mean to you to be educated? How might Georgetown College help you achieve this aim?”

Two of the essays were written by admitted students, and three by ChatGPT,

with various additions to the prompt. One ChatGPT essay responded to the prompt with no further instructions, and another responded to the prompt with the instruction to “tie your response to religion and your interest in studying law later in life.” The final essay was asked to use a “toolbox analogy.” Of the three ChatGPT essays, admissions officers correctly identified two as being written by AI, and were unsure about the essay which discussed several Jesuit values and a personal ambition of wanting to become a lawyer.

James Colman and Melissa Costanzi, admissions officers with more than 20 years

Logg, whose research focuses on how algorithms are used in hiring, thinks frequent AI use will cancel itself out. “I can imagine if the algorithm is not just assessing what’s being submitted but also generating it, you have this arms race of how you beat this system,” Logg said.

Already, research has shown work sample tasks, such as writing tests, tend to be better indicators of job performance than cover letters, and Logg predicts that hiring practices will shift to reflect that.

While certain industries may innovate away from ChatGPT-vulnerable tasks (like formulaic essays and template cover letters), other fields could benefit from the quick drafts the software provides, such as summary memorandums or other kinds of formulaic professional writing.

“Think about how much time you spend writing certain kinds of summaries, that this might now be able to do, where you could then use that time to do more high-level thinking,” Maloney said. Shortform areas might be where the tool’s strength lies: collating and summarizing information to make our lives easier.

A human’s value in a world with sophisticated AI is in their ability to evaluate the AI’s outputs, Maloney said. “This tool, at least right now, is not sentient. It doesn’t have a perspective, it doesn’t have a point of view,” he said. “It has no way of saying this is good or bad, or making ethical decisions, other than what other people have written, so it has no touchpoint to the world that we live in or we act in. You do.”

of experience each, found the essays to be formulaic if not necessarily concerning. “They’re boring essays. There’s nothing in this that’s saying: ‘Wow, this kid’s very interesting.’ Maybe the admissions committee would love to see them, but [the essays] are not bad, they’re just boring,” Costanzi said.

The distinction between the expected high school-level narrative writing and the AI’s work was stark to many. Kelvia Jaupi (CAS ’22), another admissions officer thought the essays sounded similar to those produced by middle schoolers just learning basic essay format. “There’s no nuance to it,” Jaupi said.

For a student’s admissions chances to be enhanced, the only AI-generated essay that wouldn’t immediately be passed over would be one subject to extensive tinkering by the applicant, the officers noted. The admissions officers also emphasized that students applying to Georgetown must confirm that all work submitted is their own. At this time, however, the admissions team reported that there is no way to determine an essay’s authenticity beyond their own instincts.

In application contexts beyond college admissions or job applications where submissions aren’t always assessed by humans, AI may be more useful.

Job applicants and employers are increasingly using AI in the hiring process.

Even if AI eventually replaces humans in some roles, he believes that the tool is limited by the capabilities of the humans operating it. Humans still need to understand what ChatGPT is trying to achieve, and how to produce the same result manually. “[Knowing] how to use a calculator is as important as having a calculator,” Maloney said. “ChatGPT is the same thing. What are the questions you are asking, and how do you help people understand that these are really good, useful questions and useful ways of using the tool?”

While ChatGPT may have initially been viewed as an essay writing tool, it doesn’t seem to be the academic disruptor or immediate industry changer that it first appeared to be. Instead, it may have a future as a collaborative tool for humans, like Wikipedia.

In thinking about how to prepare students for a future that integrates AI, there needs to be a consideration of how humans can develop skills that complement the technology. “Part of our investment in where we’re going and what we’re doing needs to be helping our students to think about the skills that allow them to actually work,” Maloney said. “Things that are fundamentally human—ethics and compassion and empathy—[are] the things that we want to make sure that we’re always investing in.” G

" Humans still need to understand what ChatGPT is trying to achieve, and how to produce the same result manually."

How embracing sexual fluidity can liberate queer sexuality

BY LOU JACQUIN

Seven years after initially coming out, I changed how I label my sexuality. The “bi” was dropped from my romantic attraction and replaced with a daunting “a,” making my new identity “asexual aromantic.”

The change was a long time coming, but I hesitated to tell those closest to me because I feared their reactions. They certainly wouldn’t have espoused any anti-queer sentiments; I just didn’t want them to think I had spent the last seven years lying to them. I especially didn’t want my bi friends to think I had been “faking it” all these years, as if I had entered their space as an imposter.

And, as I slowly slipped my new labels into conversations, I realized the problem: Our culture posits an overly rigid understanding of sexuality. If someone is straight, they will always be straight. If they are gay, they will always be gay. What about before they realized their queerness? Well, they must’ve been gay before then too—they “just didn’t know it yet,” or “were in denial.”

The rhetoric that we were born a certain sexual orientation was created to counter the conservative belief that people are born straight and homosexuality was a choice, a social ill to be corrected. But this notion, as well as its rallying cry “Born this Way,” has perpetuated the untrue—and potentially harmful—notion that our sexuality has always been and will always be the same.

To begin with, sexuality isn’t always static. While some people identify as sexually fluid—an identity that recognizes that sexuality can change over short or long periods of time—the fluidity of sexuality is not limited to people who identify with said label.

That being said, it must be noted that sexual fluidity is not necessarily a reality for everyone. In fact, many people do not experience sexual fluidity, especially over short periods of time. Thus, the acceptance of sexual fluidity should not be taken to condone conversion therapy or the idea that queerness is “just a phase.” When someone identifies with a certain sexuality, it is very much their lived reality; suggesting to them that it will eventually change can be as harmful as forcing them to see it as rigid. Instead, I believe that sexuality can change, not that it will or should.

The point is not to have everyone identify as sexually fluid. Instead, I contend that being open to the idea that our sexuality can and may change can reduce queer (and perhaps even straight) people’s anxiety surrounding their sexual identity and encourage them to

live their most authentic selves without fear of alienation.

Treating sexuality as static creates the pressure of finding the perfect label. While not everyone feels comfortable with labels, they are a valuable way to find a community within the vast and diverse group of LGBTQ+ identities. When you are new to the LGBTQ+ community, choosing a label can be a liberating experience that finally provides the affirmation that questioning our sexuality takes away. It also gives us a sort of mini-family, a community that we can relate to and that can help us find our bearings.

But picking a label is also riddled with anxiety. The culturally reinforced idea that sexual identity is permanent and predetermined at birth, or at least from a very young age, makes choosing a label especially stressful. And, while not everyone’s sexuality changes over time, coming to terms with the fact that it may have changed becomes extremely difficult in a world where it is considered irreversibly final.

What if no one believes you? What if everyone thinks you were lying beforehand? What if that first queer community you found rejects you for “deceiving” them?

Our rigid conceptions of sexuality create the assumption that anyone who changes their label must’ve been lying. It implies that all of their past relationships were invalid and that they no longer have any right to the communities they once identified with. But this is categorically false.

At the time that I identified as biromantic, I truly believed myself to be biromantic. The fact that my labels have since changed does not negate the experiences I had. I no longer identify as bi, but this does not mean that being bi was not a reality for me at the time.

The process of growing and changing our labels should not be one of anxiety, but rather one of joy, which can only be truly achieved if we dismantle our stiff conceptions of sexuality. Rather than being scared that we will hurt the people around us by announcing a change, we should be more concerned with living authentically. We should be able to look back at our old sexuality with fondness and still feel connected to the peers with whom we once surrounded ourselves.

Being forced to hide parts of yourself has long been a reality for queer folks. The feeling that you

cannot show people your thoughts or must be careful about how you express yourself creates shame and anxiety—the antithesis of the selfacceptance we all crave.

By acknowledging that labels can change, choosing a label within the queer community becomes easier. We will be more compelled to choose what feels right at the moment without fear that we are “wrong” about our sexuality. We will be more open to experimenting with different labels and experiences that can help us on a path of self-discovery.

If we begin to embrace that sexuality may be fluid, we lift the anxiety that comes with having to “figure ourselves out.” We will have more freedom to explore what we feel to be the most authentic in our current moment without the fear of being wrong. We will be free from fear of rejection from the communities we once were a part of. And, maybe, if I come out again, it will be without the hurtful reactions and the problematic questions I was met with last time. Instead, my friends will embrace me with open arms, and I will finally be able to do the same for myself. G

Anti-Zionism and antisemitism are not the same. Equating them harms all Jews.

BY ANNETTE HASNAS

It is common to see anti-Zionist arguments met with accusations of antisemitism. Public figures are branded antisemites for criticizing the Israeli government. Anti-Zionist Jews are called self-hating. Conversations about Palestine are derailed by charges of anti-Jewish bigotry. Such an emotionally charged claim is certainly compelling, but there’s a problem: It just isn’t true.

Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are linked, and the former certainly can be present in the latter, but it is not always. In fact, assertions that the two are inherently synonymous are themselves antisemitic. Such claims often rely on the idea that Jews as a collective must support the Zionist cause, which is not only untrue but also paints Jews as a monolith. Though the percentage of Jews who oppose Israel is a minority, it is a significant one. As many as one in 10 U.S. Jews actively supports the controversial Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement—a movement aimed at pressuring Israel into conforming with certain demands surrounding its treatment of Arab Palestinian residents of the region. The idea that Jewishness and support for Zionism must always come hand in hand is false.

This truth does not mean that anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitic. Regardless of the existence of anti-Zionist Jews, antiZionism would indeed be antisemitic if it were an inherent part of Jewish liberation. But it isn’t.

Supporters of Israel will often push the notion that to deny the nationhood of Israel would be to deprive Jews “of all people on earth” of the right to self-determination. But there is no shortage of examples of other peoples without total control of the governments that rule over them, including Uyghurs, Kashmiris, and Basques. These peoples, much like Jews, deserve self-determination, and separatist movements exist within many of them. But to oppose the establishment of an ethnostate for these groups is not generally considered evidence of bigotry against them. To claim that the protection of Jews necessitates a Jewish state is not just wrong, but dangerous. It buys into the arguments made by other ethnonationalists that the existence of a state controlled by one ethnicity or religious group is required to ensure that such a group is protected.

In fact, not only is the existence of a Jewish state not necessary for Jewish rights, it is so

unnecessary that many prominent Jewish thinkers have viewed it as actively harmful to Jews globally. For one thing, many religious Jewish thinkers have historically viewed the creation of a Jewish state of Israel as contradictory to divine will. Further, Zionism has encouraged the already too-prevalent perception of Jews as “alien” within whichever countries they inhabit. By painting Jews as not just an ethnic and religious minority group in any given country, but actually as foreign nationals of a separate Jewish state, Zionism reaffirms the antisemitic belief that Jews are natural outsiders and ought not to be treated as equal citizens of countries outside of Israel. And this argument has been utilized to actively

disproportionate criminal punishment for Arab residents of Israel, or air strikes on Palestinian civilians. Like any nation, Israel is far from perfect. To label any criticism of a country’s policies and political stance as antisemitic is entirely unjustified.

Of course, concerns over the conduct of Israel the nation, as it exists today, are irrelevant to a form of Zionism that supports merely the theoretical existence of a Jewish state. But this raises a further concern with labeling anti-Zionism inherently antisemitic: What Zionism means is not always clear. There are, undoubtedly, forms of what could be called Zionism, the opposition to which would lead to warranted accusations of antisemitism. For example, if one views Zionism as the belief that Jewish individuals ought to be welcome in the land that is now Israel, and anti-Zionism as the belief that they ought not to be, then anti-Zionism is certainly antisemitic; nobody ought to be excluded from a region based on religion or ethnicity. But to use this truth against those who oppose Zionism under many of its other definitions would be clearly absurd. Nonetheless, that is often how it is used.

The association of an entire religion and ethnicity with a specific nation has tangible, real-world impacts. In 2021, antisemitic hate crimes in America rose by 34 percent from the previous year, a change which officials attribute partially to Israeli violence in Gaza. This is an example of anti-Zionism that is antisemitic, but it’s also illustrative of the way equating anti-Zionism and antisemitism in all cases harms Jews.

Even accepting the flawed premise of a Jewish nation-state as necessary for the protection of Jews, it would still be a great leap to believe that support for Israel as it currently exists is required. For one thing, Israel was created on land that was already inhabited; Palestine housed nearly 2 million residents of varying ethnicities in 1947, the year before Israel as a nation was established by a United Nations partition. Even beyond its location, there are many things to criticize about the conduct of the nation. To wish for national self-determination for Jews does not mean support for displacement of Palestinians,

If people did not view all Jews as somehow connected to or representative of Israel—a view that is only encouraged by the assertion that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are the same—hate crimes related to the actions of the Israeli state could be greatly reduced.

Discussions of Israel are often going to be fraught. There’s no avoiding the many obstacles involved in having conversations around such a tense international situation, with so many interests on all sides vying for support. But such tension doesn’t need to be compounded by accusations of antisemitism where they don’t belong. Zionism as a political idea needs to be judged on its own merits and condemned for its own failings, and antisemitism needs to be taken seriously and actively combatted. And conflating the two related but separate concepts actively hinders both pursuits. G

Georgetown, change your colors

BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD

In 1876, 11 years after the end of the Civil War, Georgetown’s Committee on Colors announced it had chosen blue and gray for the uniforms of Georgetown College’s Boat Club. Their reasoning? To express “the feeling of unity that exists between the Northern and Southern boys of the College,” as the June 1876 edition of the College Journal put it. Later adopted officially by the school in the same year, blue and gray have since become inseparable from Georgetown’s identity.

The colors, however, harken to the original uniforms of the Union and Confederacy respectively, supposedly purporting “unity” between the North and South. It is past time for the university to stop honoring enslavement and white supremacy in its symbols—blue and gray must go.

The colors conceal the insidious truth that Hoyas overwhelmingly supported the Confederacy, and by extension, the institution of slavery. Confederate soldiers disproportionately represented Georgetown’s student body; of approximately 1,100 Georgetown students who fought in the Civil War, 900 fought on the side of the Confederacy. Moreover, many of Georgetown’s founders—like John Carroll and William Gaston— enslaved hundreds of families and exploited their labor to unwillingly construct much of the university as we know it. Georgetown’s financial survival in the 1830s, made possible by the sale of over 300 Black men, women, and children, underlines how the university owes its existence to the enslavement of Black people. The celebration of the university through its colors blue and gray is directly tied to its support of slavery and ignores the harm the university has directly inflicted and continues to perpetuate.

The Editorial Board calls on Georgetown to change the school’s colors from blue and gray. To do so, the university must form a new Committee on Colors that would include descendants of the people Georgetown enslaved, the people most impacted by Georgetown’s racist history—and individuals who have already called for the colors to be changed. This change is long overdue— Georgetown must tear down the monuments to its legacy of enslavement.

It may be said that blue and gray are just colors, but when these colors are flaunted on jerseys, touted in our fight song, and adopted by our titular tour guide organization, they are, in effect, not far from a monument. Monuments enshrine an institution’s values. In this sense, the university elevates a false sense of unity while dismissing the injustice of slavery. Blue and gray may be so ubiquitous in our environment that we neglect to think about what they mean, but they are far from just colors. Rather, these colors, especially gray, are inseparable from the university’s history of white supremacy and enslavement.

In honoring the postwar unity and veterans from the North and South, Georgetown is actively

ignoring what the Confederacy actually stood for: the right to enslave other people. Information about the meaning behind blue and gray is not widely disseminated on university websites, aside from a small subpage on the Georgetown library website. And although the school colors blue and gray are the namesake of Georgetown’s Blue & Gray Tour Guide Society, nowhere on its official website or its fall 2022 tour manual are there explicit mentions of the origin of the colors. Prospective and current students, along with other members of the community, are not explicitly told what these colors mean. This information essentially isn’t available unless intentionally sought out.

Beyond the school’s colors, many students remain unaware of other racist symbols on campus, from the statue of John Carroll to buildings that bear the names of colonizers and enslavers. That isn’t to say there isn’t some responsibility on students to educate themselves. However, through failing to explain the history of the colors on most of its public websites, in its classrooms, and at its athletic events, Georgetown has created an environment where students, especially those with white privilege, can spend four years without considering the weight of Georgetown’s oppression of Black people.

Georgetown isn’t just shrouding its historical ties with the Confederacy, it is also tacitly legitimizing them. Specifically, a plaque in New North commemorating the Civil War Centennial at Georgetown, erected in 1961 by the Georgetown University Alumni Association, suggests that both causes of the Union and the Confederacy were righteous and noble. The plaque reads: “From 1861 to 1865, in America’s tragic epic of the Civil War, 1138 sons of Georgetown in blue or in gray offered themselves on the altar of patriotism in the defense of the constitutional rights to which they were bound in conscience.”

This tribute to the Confederacy whitewashes the causes of the Civil War, portraying the Confederacy as a patriotic fight for righteous causes rather than as a horrific attempt to preserve and institutionalize slavery and white supremacy.

The financial cost and logistical challenge of rebranding all of Georgetown’s publicfacing and internal branding may possibly deter university leadership from

pursuing a change in school colors. Nevertheless, the Editorial Board believes that removing symbols that celebrate the university’s past of slavery and white supremacy is worth the effort and potential expense. Other institutions have made similar moves to remove or change symbols that honor colonization and enslavement.

As recently as last year, George Washington University committed to discontinuing the use of the Colonials moniker. The Washington Commanders changed their name from the Washington Redskins, a change long called for by Indigenous activists at the forefront of a global movement against racial injustice. Ryerson University changed its name to Toronto University following widespread protests and the toppling of a statue of Egerton Ryerson, an architect of Canada’s residential school system, which contributed to the genocide of many Indigenous communities. Changing Georgetown’s colors is not a radical idea, but rather a long-overdue reckoning with the university’s legacies of racism and colonialism.

University leadership must take decisive steps to incorporate Georgetown’s history of enslavement into its public narrative. The first step is to create a working group, including members of Georgetown’s numerous descendant communities, to discuss what to change the colors to; this committee’s recommendation should be approved through a student referendum. Georgetown’s Blue & Gray Tour Guide Society could also lead the charge by changing its name. Georgetown must further publicize the history and meaning of the blue and gray on its official websites and explain to the community why this working group is being formed through campuswide communications and updates. All members of our community must engage with this shared past during our time at Georgetown— and that starts with understanding the meaning behind the colors we wear. G

Georgetown’s indoor track team makes strides in 2022-23 season

BY LUCIE PEYREBRUNE

People thought it was impossible to run a subfour-minute mile until Roger Bannister ran a 3:59:04 on May 6, 1954. In the 2021-22 NCAA indoor track season, 82 student-athletes ran one. On Jan. 27, four Hoyas—senior Matt Rizzo, junior Abel Teffra, senior Camden Gilmore, and sophomore Lucas Guerra—did the same.

The 2021-22 indoor track season saw many strong individual performances from the Hoyas, who have a tradition of excellence in running, and in the 2022-23 season, the team built on their momentum, especially on the women’s side.

The women’s team opened the season with a bang on Dec. 3, 2022, at the VMI Team Challenge. Graduate Eni Akinniyi broke a school record that stood for nearly three years in the triple jump, jumping 12.8 meters. Senior Maya Drayton and freshman Jadah Fitzgerald finished one-two in the 400m dash, and the 4x400m relay team took first place. In the Sharon Colyear-Danville season opener, senior Maggie Donahue broke her own school record in the 5K with a time of 15:43:98.

The men also had a strong showing at the season opener, winning the 60m, the 200m, and the 800m, and taking the top three spots in the 400m. According to the coaches, there was more to come.

Alton McKenzie, director of the cross-country and track and field program, explained the goal for the first meet was to use cross-country fitness as a baseline metric: “For example, Maggie Donahue breaking her school record in the 5K coming off of being an All-American in cross-country.” Similarly, it was senior Matthew Payamps, the 800m winner’s first time getting back into the action after an illness-riddled crosscountry season.

At the Nittany Lion Challenge in January, the Hoyas faced much stiffer competition than they had in December. In spite of that, the men’s and women’s teams combined for eight top-three finishes, including Akinniyi winning the triple jump again, setting a strong tone for the rest of the season.

The rest of the January meets saw more personal bests from the Hoyas. At the Hokie Invitational a few weeks later, Payamps ran a 2:20:41 to win the 1000m, breaking a 44-yearold school record by just 28-hundredths of a second. Junior Christopher Pitt and sophomore Aaron Lindsey set personal records in the long jump and the 400m, respectively, as did both 4x400m relays.

Coaches were pleased with the momentum that both teams were building, and excited to see how much more it would grow.

In February, the Hoya men once again dominated the mile at the Navy Select, taking the top four spots, and the Hoya women swept the top four spots in the 3000m in Annapolis. The same weekend, Georgetown sent both distance medley relays (DMRs) to the Alex Wilson Invitational to give them the opportunity to qualify for the NCAA championship, which requires a top-16 time in the country for any given season for individual races and a top-12 time for relays. The women’s DMR of sophomore Melissa Riggins, Drayton, graduate Katy-Ann McDonald, and graduate Grace Jensen broke the school record set in 2016—by Hoyas that would eventually win the NCAA title.

and the men sixth overall, there were several individual highlights.

On the women’s side, Riggins and McDonald finished first and second in the mile, Drayton won the 400m, and the Hoyas won the 4x800m. Riggins, who anchored the 4x800m, was given the honor of Women’s Most Outstanding Performer in Track Events.

The men won their 4x800m relay, and junior Joshua Paige won the 200m by breaking his own school record with a time of 20.99 seconds. He was also named Men’s Most Outstanding Performer in Track Events.

Despite their somewhat lackluster team placements at the BIG EAST championships, both teams still had a number of athletes named to the All-BIG EAST Team.

For the women, Drayton achieved All-BIG EAST honors in the 200m and 400m, Jensen in the 800m, Riggins and McDonald in the mile, junior Chloe Gonzalez and graduate Andrea Claeson in the 3000m, and Chloe Scrimgeour in the 5000m.

Paige was named to the All-BIG EAST Team for the 200m, Teffra for the 800m, Rizzo for the mile, and Gilmore for the 3000m. Both 4x800m relays were also selected.

“To break the school record to qualify for the meet speaks to the high quality that they showed, and how good the team is to even get an opportunity to get into the meet. Like I said, I might be biased, but I think it’s pretty much the toughest to get into,” McKenzie said.

The men’s DMR ran the fifth-fastest time in school history, but McKenzie acknowledged in a press release that it was unlikely their effort would be enough to qualify.

Heading into the BIG EAST Championships on Feb. 24-25, Georgetown seemed ready to go. It would be their first time, however, racing against many of their more competitive BIG EAST opponents. While the women took third place

The Hoyas qualified five athletes for the NCAA Indoor Championships in the women’s DMR and Rizzo in the mile. The DMR placed fifth overall, and four runners were named first-team All-American. Rizzo placed 13th in the preliminaries and did not qualify for the final, but his performance was still good enough to earn him second-team All-American honors. Looking ahead to the outdoor season, the Hoyas will be in good shape to make a run for a BIG EAST title, particularly on the women’s side. If Akinniyi can return in full force to repeat as BIG EAST champion in the triple jump, combined with the performances that the women put up in the indoor championships, the team will be a force to be reckoned with, a fact recognized by the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association when they were ranked 15th in the nation in the mid-year programs update, the only BIG EAST team to make the rankings.

McKenzie knows it, too. “The goal is to have a good indoor season, but the mindset is still that we want to run well outdoors,” he said. “If you have an exceptional indoor season but outdoor doesn’t go as right, then you’ll still remember the outdoor season.”

For the Hoyas, the next three months will be their chance to do just that and make an outdoor season worth remembering. G

“A Season of Sondheim”: Signature Theater’s Pacific Overtures pays homage to Japanese theatrical traditions

BY HAILEY WHARRAM

Content warning: This article includes references to sexual harassment.

An exploration of Western imperialism and influence in 19th century Japan, Signature Theatre’s production of Stephen Sondheim’s Pacific Overtures handles its complex subject matter sensitively, but never with kid gloves. Education and entertainment seamlessly blend with formidable vocals, intricate mise-en-scène, and rich symbolism to recount Japanese history. Spearheaded by an incredibly talented, all-Asian American cast and directorial team—with Ethan Heard and Alexander Tom as director and musical director respectively—Pacific Overtures is a mesmerizing two hours and 20 minutes; the show moves like honey, naturally sweetened by the cast’s tender, vulnerable

Way” taking time to familiarize the audience with a more leisurely, introspective pace. However, things roar to life with the number “Four Black Dragons,” featuring anecdotal recollections regarding the arrival of Perry’s “black ships” from citizens of Uraga. Ensemble member Chani Werely’s voice particularly shines here, her belted notes knocking the wind out of the audience with the force of a thunderous hurricane.

This heightened energy continues in the humorous yet twisted “Chrysanthemum Tea.” Clad in a flowing, floral green kimono, Andrew Cristi portrays the shogun’s mother who mercilessly nags her bedridden son to handle the American warships looming on the shoreline. Ironically, this lively number details the shogun’s pitiful demise—turns out his delightfully devious mother was slipping a bit more than motherly love into his bedside brew. Like “Welcome to Kanagawa” later on in the first

fingers as the taiko drum beats menacingly. Awash in red light, the moment foreshadows the violent conflict to come as a result of this (over)step, both between Japan and the European imperial powers and among Japanese citizens with conflicting sentiments towards the West.

The second act examines Western infringements on Japanese life through “Please, Hello!” and “A Bowler Hat.” The former is a deeply satirical number in which over-the-top caricatures of imperial powers such as the U.S., England, the Netherlands, France, and Russia present long lists of demands to the shogun. As they titter around and mark their newly claimed territory with their flags—both placed on the ground and passed out to audience members— frightening cannon fire rattles offstage.

Though much of the critique is comedic, Pacific

As an avid fan of trashy reality TV, I pressed play on MILF Manor knowing what to expect: an overdramatized, unorganized piece of junk that I would consume gluttonously. Despite my extremely low expectations, the nine-episode saga did not meet any of them. MILF Manor is a poorly organized, deeply uncomfortable Love Island rip-off that becomes nearly unwatchable as it deliberately exploits the profoundly personal relationships between its contestants.

TLC’s MILF Manor follows eight women aged 40-60 in their search for young love at a resort in Mexico who—in a disturbing and Freudian turn of events—find out that their dating pool consists of each others’ sons. From here, these women have to navigate romantic and sexual relationships with men decades younger than themselves while sharing a private bedroom with their own son.

MILF Manor’s distasteful yet enticing premise had the potential to draw in thousands of viewers, but its complete lack of structure makes it incredibly difficult to follow. The show’s main goal is for each mother-and-son duo to find love, but there are no clear consequences for contestants that do not find a match. At first, it seemed intuitive to assume that every challenge would result in elimination, but as three episodes passed by, no eliminations came to fruition. Then, in a shock to viewers, mother-andson duo April and Ricky are sent home in the fourth episode immediately after losing a challenge. This elimination, while surprising, was sloppy; it was as if the producers felt pressured to drive the plot forward so they threw in an elimination to heighten drama, but it lacked the contextual suspense to fully impact the viewer.

MILF Manor’s careless structure was only exacerbated by choppy and thoughtless editing. When it was announced that Ricky and April were going home, my first thought was, “Who’s Ricky?” It was difficult to muster up any feeling of sadness or relief simply because I barely knew—much less cared—about the duo thanks to their lack of screen time. Despite being introduced at the beginning of the season, the producers focused on different storylines with different contestants. Tears from other contestants over their departure

rendered the entire event inauthentic, as audience members did not know who Ricky and April were, much less know how well they got along with other contestants.

The lack of forethought in production led MILF Manor to have virtually no solidified plot. While some natural tensions materialized (i.e., a love triangle between contestants Stefany, Gabriel, and Ryan), producers overutilized these few moments as the sole points of contention. I watched with agonizing boredom, anxiously waiting for episodes to end, hoping for any semblance of antagonism to manifest within the show. I found myself rooting for literally anything to happen. As each episode ended, I became increasingly disappointed that the production dragged out existing plot points without introducing anything new.

But it’s the plot’s disturbing absence of morality that makes the show nearly unwatchable. Our societal obsession with troubling stories is not only seen by the popularity of true crime podcasts, but also in our addiction to exploitative reality TV shows. Combined with its overt sexuality that hints at incest, MILF Manor created the perfect formula for a show that is disturbing to watch but impossible to tear your eyes away from.

Particularly, the excessively sexual nature of the challenges the contestants must participate in reveal the producers’ intent to exploit the grotesque intersection of sexual and familial relationships. Most of the challenges included some form of incestual sexual imitation; one of the most egregious examples being a son going down on an orange atop a female mannequin while his mother sits in the audience.

Worst of all was the challenge where each mother-son duo had to divulge their deepest sexual secrets to one another. During this challenge, one of the contestants, SoYoung, reveals to her son, Jimmy, that she had sex with his best friend. Reality TV shows are unethical by nature, but allowing the producers to follow the deterioration of Jimmy and SoYoung’s relationship showcases how MILF Manor crosses a line that is completely insensitive to the contestants’ mental health and personal relationships.

The privacy violations are compounded by the extreme surveillance. From cameras in bedrooms, saunas, and hot tubs, to the production team following Jimmy as he drunkenly skinny dips in the pool, attempting to cope with the fact that his mother had sex with his best friend, MILF Manor was so uncomfortable and invasive that I had to take a multi-day break from watching the show to regain my sanity.

But I ultimately did come back. Morally, I knew this show should not be celebrated with any extra clicks, earning its perverted producers more notoriety for creating this piece of hot garbage. I yearned, however, to know just exactly how MILF Manor would devolve into more chaos.

Other viewers felt the same, as many went to Twitter to detail their disgust with the show, but immediately admitted how their obsession with it overcame any moral compulsion to stop watching. The problem with MILF Manor is that it reaches a level of immorality that reality TV hasn’t seen before. With TLC’s decision to publicly showcase familial tensions—and possibly emotionally incestuous relationships—MILF Manor creates a diabolical spectacle out of these broken family relationships and makes it something that the general public is supposed to laugh at. MILF Manor not only exploits the contestants themselves, but also our society’s perverted tendency to fixate on the unnatural. I attribute my fixation on the show solely to the fact that sex sells. But, when does sex go from an acceptable object of our fixation to an unacceptable line to cross? Where do we, as viewers, draw the line?

I would describe MILF Manor as a flaming trainwreck of a show; it is truly terrible, but I could not stop watching. Despite the awful production, the awful challenges, and how awful it was to watch sons and mothers attempt to tiptoe around each other to have sex with other contestants, I was glued to my screen. MILF Manor exemplifies a show that toes the line between acceptable trashy TV and downright deranged content. If you want to save yourself from the exhausting hours of dissecting how and why Freudian ideology still rings true today, put MILF Manor on your do-not-watch list. G