The Georgetown Voice, 9/8/23

S E P T E M B E R 8, 2 0 2 3

BOTTOMS: IN DEFENSE OF “UGLY, UNTALENTED GAYS”

By Kennedy Jackson and Sophie Molitor

AN EARLY EVALUATION OF THE ED COOLEY ERA

By Ben Jakabcsin

HEARTSTOPPER SEASON TWO IS TENDER AND UNAPOLOGETICALLY QUEER

By Ajani Jones

Contents

September 8, 2023 Volume 56 | Issue 2 Editor-In-Chief Nora Scully Managing Editor Graham Krewinghaus internal resources Executive Editor for Ajani Jones Resources, Diversity, and Inclusion Assistant Editor for Lukas Soloman Resources, Diversity, and Inclusion Editor for Sexual Violence Katherine Hawes Advocacy and Coverage Service Chair Lizzie Short Social Chair Margaret Hartigan, Francesca Theofilou Archivist Lou Jacquin

4

news Executive Editor Margaret Hartigan Features Editor Amber Xie News Editor Alex Deramo Assistant News Editors Angelena Bougiamas, Eddy BinfordRoss, Ninabella Arlis

features

Despite dilapidation in Chinatown, D.C.’s Chinese American community continues to thrive AMBER XIE AND KRISTY LI

6

leisure

10

11

Bottoms: In defense of “ugly, untalented gays”

Running backs: Football’s third estate

KENNEDY JACKSON AND SOPHIE MOLITOR

LANGSTON LEE

60th anniversary of March on Washington is a testament to activist determination

halftime sports

7

news

ANDREA HO

sports

Georgetown soccer brings experience in quest for postseason success

on the cover

8

Georgetown’s Socially Responsible Investing policy means nothing without accountability

"It’s my last year playing college soccer.

It’s a blessing to have this opportunity and to have it for five years, and so I really just want to enjoy the ride and to go as far as possible."

editor@georgetownvoice.com Leavey 424 Box 571066 Georgetown University 3700 O St. NW Washington, DC 20057

2

Heartstopper season two is tender and unapologetically queer

editorials

BEN JAKACBSIN

contact us

13 14

sports

PG. 3

CAROLINE SAMOLUK

AJANI JONES

An early evaluation of the Ed Cooley Era

goalkeeper

halftime leisure

Good Omens season two is a tale of queerness and Christianity

halftime leisure

ANDREW SWANK AND LUCIE PEYREBRUNE

- Allie Augur, WSOC graduate

12

EDITORIAL BOARD

leisure Executive Editor Maya Kominsky Leisure Editor Isabel Shepherd Assistant Editors Hailey Wharram, Eileen Chen, Rhea Banerjee Halftime Editor Zach Warren Assistant Halftime Editors Nikki Farnham, Sagun Shrestha, Caroline Samoluk sports Executive Editor Lucie Peyrebrune Sports Editor Jo Stephens Assistant Editors Langston Lee, Thomas Fishbeck, Ben Jakabcsin Halftime Editor Henry Skarecky Assistant Halftime Editors Bradshaw Cate, Sam Lynch, Andrew Swank design Executive Editor Cecilia Cassidy Design Editor Sabrina Shaffer Spread Editors Olivia Li, Dane Tedder Cover Editor Tina Solki Assistant Design Editors Grace Nuri, Madeleine Ott, Elin Choe copy Copy Chiefs Donovan Barnes, Maanasi Chintamani Assistant Copy Editors Cole Kindiger, Lizzie Short, Eileen Miller multimedia Podcast Executive Producer Jillian Seitz Podcast Editor Romy Abu-Fadel Assistant Podcast Editor Lucy Collins online Online Executive Pierson Cohen Website Editor Tyler Salensky Assistant Website Editor MJ Morales Social Media Editor Kristy Li business General Manager Rovi Yu Assistant Manager of Sheryn Livingstone Alumni and Outreach

“whole buncha studs” TINA SOLKI

The opinions expressed in The Georgetown Voice do not necessarily represent the views of the administration, faculty, or students of Georgetown University, unless specifically stated.

Columns, advertisements, cartoons, and opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Board or the General Board of The Georgetown Voice. The university subscribes to the principle of responsible freedom of expression of its student editors. All materials copyright The Georgetown Voice, unless otherwise indicated.

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

opinion Executive Editor Lou Jacquin Voices Editor Barrett Ahn Assistant Voices Editors Aminah Malik, Lukas Soloman, Olivia Pozen Editorial Board Chair Andrea Ho Editorial Board Jupiter Huang, Connor Martin, Dane Tedder

support Contributing Editors Adora Adeyemi, Francesca Theofilou Staff Contributors Meriam Ahmad, Elyza Bruce, Romita Chattaraj, Leon Cheung, Yihan Deng, Julia Kelly, Ashley Kulberg, Amelia Myre, Nicholas Romero, Carlos Rueda, Ryan Samway, Michelle Serban, Isabelle Stratta, Kami Steffenauer, Amelia Wanamaker, Fallon Wolfley, Nadine Zakheim

graphic by bahar hassantash; layout by sabrina shaffer

Page 3

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

crossword by brendan teehan; "panini" by pia cruz; ; mad lib by sabrina shaffer and nora scully; podcast artwork by dane tedder

→ BRENDAN'S CROSSWORD

→ PIA'S BEAUTIFUL PANINI

→ SNACK TIME WITH GOSSIP RAT: A MAD LIB Once upon a time, Gossip Rat was lounging in his [DORM ON CAMPUS] when he was struck by a sudden and insatiable craving for [PLURAL NOUN]. “If I don’t get some [NOUN] in me right now, I think I’ll die,” he thought. So, to avoid death, Gossip Rat scurried down to [GEORGETOWN RESTAURANT] in search of that special snacky snack. As fate would have it, that location had recently been closed due to health violations including [PLAGUE]. “[EXPLETIVE]!” shouted Gossip Rat. “How hard is it to get some [PLURAL NOUN] around here?” Feeling [EMOTION], he began vigorously [VERB ENDING IN -ING] until [LENGTH OF TIME] later, he collapsed from exhaustion. He woke up in a hospital bed, surrounded by [PLURAL NOUN] and his [NUMBER] rat children.

“I’m so lucky to be a Hoya!” he [VERB-ED].

ACROSS 1. Husband, in Hamburg 5. Sun____ (orange soda) 9. Not logos or pathos 11. Apollo on a Red Moon in Venus 12. Fourth letter, but first in a foreign service sisterhood 13. Calmer choice for a ringtone 14. Correspondences made under the influence 16. Insect that can lift 50 times its body weight 19. Un garçon or ein Junge, depending on the side of the mountain 21. Coquettish 22. You, in Toulouse 23. Falter 24. A first-year, per this year's NSO theme 26. Sting___: flat fish 27. Opera frequenter 29. Cap-wearing Daniel of US history 30. "Laughing with my tongue out", via SMS 34. A gogi berry is a super one 35. Mary's full of it 36. The A in AD 37. Our parents' Uber X DOWN 1. Pre-___ 2. Left everyone gagging, or didn't gag at all 3. Domain of Kings, Knights, and ... Penguins?

4. With 35 Across, musical ornament 5. Their "cash" helps you save on clothes 6. "You're not as sick as me!!"

7. Cycle of death and rebirth in Hinduism 8. Number of colors on the flag of Italia 10. Alongside 13 Across, 27 Across, 35 Across/4 Down, and 13 Down, especially vocal Georgetown student 13. Tulsi Gabbard, Lindsay Graham, or Gabby Giffords (twice) 15. Some "chase" it 16. Oft-used prefix in the Pitch Perfect franchise 17. Obstacle when eating soup 18. Tropical cyclone 20. What Speed Queen fails to do to clothes 25. Slang term for "stranger" 28. Appropriate name for a morgue employee 29. Degree for TPST majors 31. MLB team representing CA 32. Charli who likes to drive fast 33. Imago ___ (in the image of God)

→ TUNE IN TO PODCASTS

Tune into this week’s Post Pitch episode discussing the editorial board's piece on Georgetown's divestment policy with this QR code:

SEPTEMBER 8, 2023

3

FEATURES

Despite dilapidation in Chinatown, D.C.’s Chinese American community continues to thrive

BY AMBER XIE AND KRISTY LI

B

etween Fifth and Eighth streets and along H and I streets lies what remains of D.C.’s Chinatown. The Friendship Arch, which was built in the style of Qing-dynasty architecture, marks the entrance to the historical neighborhood. The archway evokes a splendor that showcases the vibrancy of traditional Chinese culture, a liveliness that is no longer reflected in the neighborhood that lies beyond it.

D . C . ’ s first Chinese community found its home in Little China between Second and Fourth streets on Pennsylvania Avenue in the 1900s, until Congress forcibly pushed residents out in the 1920s to create space for the National Mall as part of the 1902 McMillan Plan. Residents moved north in the 1930s, establishing the Chinatown of today.

As anti-Asian discrimination and xenophobia arose in the 1900s following the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, Chinatowns across the U.S. played a vital role in helping newly arrived families find their footing, often providing a residential hub for Chinese American residents to feel safe and to foster community. The Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association of D.C. (CCBA), established in 1939, was among several organizations that worked to help immigrants adjust to language differences, find housing, and obtain social security cards.

By the 1940s, Chinatown’s streets had filled with Chinese restaurants, grocery stores, and residents.

“Chinatowns in general were formed as safe havens for Chinese immigrants,” Jack Lee, first vice chair of the CCBA, said. “Back during those times, there was not a network outside of the Chinese community that could help new immigrants.”

Today, Lee notes that most of Chinatown’s remaining Chinese residents, many of whom are elderly, live in the historical Wah Luck House, one of the last affordable housing communities that remain in Chinatown. The building was originally built in 1982 by the District government for Chinese immigrants displaced by surrounding construction projects.

4

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

As a result, present-day Chinatown looks like a shadow of its former self. The rise of new infrastructure and buildings projects has been a bellowing force in the displacement of Chinese residents and their businesses. The 1997 opening of the MCI Center, now the Capital One Arena and Georgetown men’s basketball’s longtime home court, notably molded the neighborhood as Chinese businesses and residential buildings became replaced with chain establishments. As gentrification took hold of Chinatown, it became less a hub for the Chinese American community and more a tourist destination.

“A lot of [the businesses] did rent space and rent went up, and of course the taxes went up. And then the small businesses— the mom and pop grocery stores, the food stores, the herbal stores—have moved out. The newer generations of immigrants that came in couldn't afford to stay there,” Stan Lou, the Talk Story Director of the 1882 Foundation, an organization focused on sharing Chinese American history and narratives, said.

In recent years, Chinatown has become increasingly dilapidated. AntiAsian sentiment, repeated lockdowns, and the interruption of tourism during the pandemic have done significant damage to the neighborhood’s economic wellbeing. Lockdown policies in particular depleted restaurants of their once-steady stream of customers of Chinese tourists and international students. As a result, Chinatown has struggled to bounce back from the pandemic, causing local businesses and even well-established franchises to permanently close their doors.

“Seventh Street now is empty. I would say 80 percent of storefronts are vacant or being leased. And to me—this is the one thing I always say—where in the world, in any city, has a McDonald’s and a Starbucks failed?”

Lee said. “Yet in D.C.’s Chinatown now, both of those are gone.”

When asked about the reason for Chinatown’s decay, several organizers pointed to lack of institutional support and financial burden.

“Restaurant owners who need to renovate their restaurants to make it better or improve it, like change the sign or change the carpet, they don’t have enough. They can't get a loan or they don't, and their tax bills are high because the land property is high. Our businesses don't have a tax break. The people that own the businesses and live there are not rich. The D.C. government has never given Chinatown any incentive for us to stay, for us to rebuild,” Lee said.

Chinatown’s deterioration drives away residents, diminishing councilmembers’ incentive to work on rectifying its problems as its constituency base shrinks, creating a toxic cycle. “You gotta have a seat at the table, and we don't have a seat. Most of the time, most of the council people, or the mayor's people, aren't really going to give [the Chinese residents of Chinatown] too much time,” Lee said.

“If you look at the successful Chinatowns, and we look at Chicago as one of them, they have a seat at the political table. That's just another catch-22, because the residents move out, so your voting bloc is very small. And so they’re gonna say, why am I worried about 300 votes or 200 votes or whatever? It just doesn't help,” Penny Lee, the public relations officer of the CCBA, said.

In the face of Chinatown’s modern dilapidation, Chinese community groups and organizations have taken it upon themselves to preserve the essence of the historical neighborhood, and maintain its presence within D.C. as a hub for Chinese culture, like the CCBA’s efforts to improve housing in the area, and beautify a park local to Chinatown.

“There are grants to preserve some of the historical buildings in Chinatown. And part of those grants are not just to preserve the physical building, but also to make it available for the Chinese community and organizations to continue to use and to bring people in,” David Uy, executive director of the Chinese American Museum, said.

Restoring Chinatown to its former glory as a bustling community hub is a perpetual goal of many within D.C. Chinese community and

design by bahar hassantash

Chinese American organizations. But each year, the numbers of Chinatown are dwindling.

More residents and newer generations leave the historic neighborhood, and more of what once made Chinatown the residential center it was becomes a figment of the past.

“Do second generation or third generation, maybe even fourth generation in D.C. want to carry on their parents' business?” Uy asked.

“I think that is also causing a shift out of Chinatown, which is not necessarily an outside force pushing them out. It's just, you know, changing needs of the population.”

The modern changes to Chinatown’s demographics and character aren’t all propelled by economic barriers, government policy, or the negative effects of COVID-19.

Some may be attributable to broader, positive evolutions of security within the D.C. Chinese.

“My father is a Chinese immigrant. You know, he came to this country, he had to kind of assimilate,” Uy said. “We lived in Queens.

There's a pretty big Asian community there.

I'm sure that was of some comfort to him, but you know, as second generation Chinese, you don't necessarily feel that need, the security of living in a Chinatown.”

Chinatown began as a protective enclave for Chinese residents, but the neighborhood is no longer solely a protective space. Designed to protect the Chinese community from the discrimination and alienation codified in the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, the nature of community-building and protection is no longer constrained to one neighborhood.

The neighborhood isn’t the only physical community for the Chinese community anymore—many Chinese Americans have relocated and continued thriving in suburban areas of Maryland and Virginia, although many still hold the Chinatown of D.C. as a unique historic and cultural center.

Chinatown is the geographic manifestation of Chinese community, memory, and history in D.C.—the area’s physical degradation hasn’t diminished its significance or legacy. It may no longer be as prominent a residential enclave as it was in the 1900s, but to many organizations and community members, the area’s symbolic nature still stands.

“There's some people that will say to me, ‘Oh, D.C. Chinatown's dead,’” Uy said. “We want people to pause and just rethink that notion that Chinatown is gone; Chinatown is dead. It can still very well be a cultural center.

It could still be a landmark that represents the Chinese American history.”

As a nexus of Chinese American culture, the nine-block Chinatown now shares Chinese heritage with not only the Chinese community of D.C. but those beyond as well. Cultural events, such as CCBA festivals celebrating Chinese cultural holidays and the Lunar New Year parade, aim to make Chinatown a true center for education on Chinese American heritage.

The Chinese Youth Club (CYC), a prominent branch of CCBA, continues to foster community in new generations of Chinese Americans by hosting sporting events. Most notably, nine-man, a style of volleyball that features nine players per side and a slightly larger court, remains popular.

Since the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, the sport had been played by Chinese Americans to unite Chinatown communities across the country and forge friendships in times of isolation. Although most players no longer live in Chinatown, its traditions live on.

“A young person just graduated from high school and is going to college. He's in the CYC volleyball team and he loves it. His friends are the same way,” Lou said.

“They want to be on Chinatown's volleyball team. This is the spirit that we want to keep promoting.”

The Chinese community of D.C. is still undeniably thriving. Networks of support persist, albeit no longer tied to a physical place.

“Even though the community here in the D.C. area is spread out, I think there's a sense of family there,” Lou said. “It took me a long time in my life to discover this, that it’s genuine support and it’s not just banding together to fend off the prejudice and hatred.”

It’s partly this tight-knit Chinese American community that allows organizations, like the 1882 Foundation and CCBA, to hold on to hopes of revitalization and preservation of the neighborhood. Despite the barriers to this goal— which include natural shifts in the Chinatown demographic, e n c r o a c h i n g infrastructure, and economic struggles— Chinatown continues to serve as a historic symbol of the Chinese American community’s resilience in the face of alienation.

“I think the community will join in and support this effort to bring our community together in ways that are more meaningful than how they exist now,” Lou said. “I think if we establish a good enough program in Chinatown, people will come, gravitate into Chinatown, and support and participate with us. Maybe I'm a dreamer in that regard.” G SEPTEMBER 8, 2023

5

LEISURE

F

rom gory fight scenes to hormonal gay teens, Bottoms (2023) undoubtedly defies expectations of a teen movie. Girls leave each other with bloodied noses and bruised eyes; football players sing “Total Eclipse of the Heart”; history teachers read magazines featuring scantily-clad divorcees. This might not sound like your typical high school experience, and it might not even sound like your typical high school parody. But parody doesn’t exist in a vacuum—there must be something genuine contained in the silliness that gives meaning to the madness. If you put aside your expectations, you realize that the universe created by director Emma Seligman is wildly entertaining, surprisingly authentic, and refreshingly clever.

The movie follows two best friends, high schoolers PJ (Rachel Sennott) and Josie (Ayo Edebiri), who get wrapped up in a bizarre lie when a rumor circulates that they spent the last summer in juvie. The girls decide to run with the story and start a “fight club” at their school in hopes of winning over their crushes, popular cheerleaders Isabel (Havana Rose Liu) and Brittany (Kaia Gerber). This crude comedy is the brainchild of screenwriters Seligman and Rachel Sennott, who previously teamed up on 2020’s acclaimed Shiva Baby. The cast is rounded out by Ruby Cruz, Nicholas Galitzine, and Marshawn Lynch. From the very start, the film explodes into an onslaught of crass jokes, rowdy antics, and soapy performances that hint at the rollercoaster to come.

The release of Bottoms was surrounded by massive hype following its premiere at SXSW Festival, especially with the film's trendy cast of stars in the making. Edebiri shot to prominence through her role in The Bear, and Galitzine also stars in the recently released Red, White & Royal Blue (2023), adapted from the hit book of the same title. All of these factors, combined with a blockbuster-filled summer, set Bottoms to premiere on top of its game. Now that the movie has hit theaters, Bottoms affirms itself as an unforgettably fun and foul experience.

The movie is a great example of authentic representation—it’s not

6

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

to appeal to an audience that the filmmakers make no attempt to truly understand. Instead, it features queer characters that feel sincere through imperfection. PJ and Josie are flawed people. They’re often manipulative, lewd, and even cruel. But Bottoms defies the conventional LGBTQ+ film expectation that there must be some dramatic coming-out scene or earthshattering heartbreak. Instead, Bottoms allows gay characters to exist and hatch wild hijinks without spotlighting trauma.

Bottoms’s brazen self-awareness of its place in a long line of raunchy teen comedies is precisely why it works—from the class hierarchy of geeks and jocks to the all-important football game, the movie revitalizes old tropes while injecting them with a refreshing perspective and obscene hilarity. It’s come along at just the right time—comedies that accurately represent the younger generation are becoming a lost art. Today’s high schoolers and college students were lucky enough to grow up watching films like She’s the Man (2006) and Mean Girls (2004)—films released just around the time we were born and that ended up becoming our hand-me-downs. But when it came time for our generation to see ourselves on the big screen, we were often left with disappointing, trite films—just look at Netflix’s She’s All That (1999) remake, He’s All That (2021). Bottoms, however, takes trashy high school movie conventions and dials them up to 100; the result is a delightfully gory, vulgar, and refreshing teen comedy that feels nostalgic and reinvigorated all at once.

With back-to-back releases of Bottoms and Barbie, 2023 seems to be the year of female-directed movies in defense of socalled “untalented women” (accompanied by Charli XCX-featured soundtracks). But Barbie is a heartfelt, whimsical celebration of the ordinary woman—a description that definitely doesn’t translate over onto Bottoms. The female solidarity of Bottoms takes on a more twisted form: the girls find their community not by virtue of their shared feminine experience, but by breaking each others’ noses and blowing up football players’ cars. If Barbie championed

solidarity between “normal” women, Bottoms is its awkward, queer cousin—an uproarious, fearlessly gross comedy worthy of “Weird Barbie” herself.

Nevertheless, Bottoms offers its own commentary on patriarchy and masculinity.

Through its gender-bent, queer lens, Bottoms manages to expose the homoerotic subtext of the heightened violence that masquerades as “true” masculinity in traditionally male-led and directed movies. For example, football player Tim (Miles Fowler) is hell-bent on destroying the girls’ fight club because of its violent and sexual nature. However, the parallels between the fight club and the football team make it obvious that the boys are doing the very same thing as the girls—the key difference, though, is that while the fight club empowers its members by teaching girls to stand up for themselves, the football players’ hypermasculine echo chamber recklessly directs aggression onto others. The football players become blinded by a misguided image of masculinity that reinforces harmful expectations that men should be aggressive and chauvinistic. What’s more, men are expected to torment those who are different from themselves—whether that be the queer outcasts or the rival football team. By borrowing elements of action and sports flicks, Bottoms highlights the irony embedded in these movies and their backwards defense of fragile masculine egos.

Bottoms’s many fight sequences and wrestling montages serve as a perfect metaphor for the film’s refusal to be pinned down.

Parts of the film feel familiar—it’s a classic underdog tale combined with absurdist, campy female violence. However, it would be unfair to say that Bottoms is exactly like any one of its predecessors: it’s something entirely new.

Brought to life with a hearty dose of queer teen drama, hilarious antics, and endless quotable lines, Bottoms is sure to become an instant classic. Don’t let the title fool you—with standout performances, wonderfully subversive writing, and a fair amount of obscenity, Bottoms is a dominant example of teen comedy at its foulest and finest. G

graphic by pia cruz; layout by madeleine ott

SPORTS

Georgetown soccer brings experience in quest for postseason success

BY ANDREW SWANK AND LUCIE PEYREBRUNE

O

nce again, No. 13 Georgetown women’s soccer has an experienced and talented group hoping to take the next step and make a deep run in the NCAA Tournament this year.

Last year, Pitt knocked Georgetown out of the NCAA Tournament in the second round. This year, though, the Hoyas have a great mix of new and returning players who could make a deep postseason run, potentially cinching a fourth BIG EAST Conference Championship after wins in 2020, 2021, and 2022.

One of the main reasons for their ambitious goals is the plethora of experienced players on the team’s roster. Fifth year graduate midfielder Julia Leas, a 2022 First Team All-American and semifinalist for the Mac Hermann Trophy, is returning this year as team captain. In goal for the Hoyas is another fifth year graduate student, Allie Augur. Augur, the 2023 Preseason BIG EAST Goalkeeper of the Year, has only conceded one goal this season. Sophomore forward Henley Tippins and junior forward Maja Lardner are other returners who can bring attacking firepower to the Hoya offense.

Georgetown also added a lot of talented new players to the roster. Graduate defender Brianne Riley transferred in from UCLA, where she won the 2022 National Championship.

Graduate forward Allie Winstanley, graduate forward/midfielder Grace Sherman, and sophomore midfielder Shay Montogomery also joined the team through the transfer portal.

Last year, a lack of scoring in key moments was an issue, but W i n s t a n l e y, Tippins, and Lardner could help change that. Although last year’s leading scorer Gia Vicari transferred to Rutgers, Augur was optimistic nonetheless.

“I think once [our offense] clicks, once that final third ball

happens, we’re gonna be unstoppable for sure,” Augur said in an interview with the Voice.

Head coach Dave Nolan, in his 20th season on the job, expressed a similar confidence in Georgetown’s ability to score goals.

“The good thing is we’re creating chances, the good thing is we’re getting opportunities, and we just need to be a little bit more polished at finishing,” Nolan said in an interview with the Voice.

Nolan has his eye on winning the BIG EAST, a goal he thinks is achievable. “At the end of the day, this is a top 20 program that views success as winning BIG EAST Championships and making as deep a run as possible in the NCAA Tournament.”

Augur also has big goals for her final season at Georgetown, but she’s making sure to savor every moment. “It’s my last year playing college soccer.

It’s a blessing to have this opportunity and to have it for five years, and so I really just want to enjoy the ride and to go as far as possible,” she said.

Georgetown women’s team is undefeated after five games, as of publication, including an impressive 1-0 win against the talented Virginia Tech team, setting them up for a successful nonconference run. The Hoyas will host No. 2 Stanford at Shaw Field at 1 p.m. on Sept. 10.

After entering the 2022 season ranked second in the nation, Georgetown men’s soccer struggled out of the gate before finally finding their footing in time for a BIG EAST regular season championship, only to be upset in the tournament championship game by No. 2-seed Creighton. That was followed by a disappointing second round exit in the NCAA tournament at the hands of No. 15 Tulsa.

But with the return of most of last year’s key players, the Hoyas (2-1-1) are shaping up to be a formidable force this season. The losses of Second Team All-American defender Daniel Wu and First Team All-East Region defender and midfielder Aidan Rocha will certainly be felt, but head coach Brian Wiese and captains Kenny Nielsen and Diego Letayf are optimistic that the team is prepared to step up to fill the gaps.

“We had the whole spring season to fix the gaps that they left, and I think that we have players that can almost do exactly what they were doing,” Nielsen said in an interview with the Voice.

The Hoyas certainly looked strong this spring, winning the Spring Soccer Cup over nine other dominant programs, including No.

design by grace nuri; photos courtesy of benjamin manens/georgetown voice

9 Wake Forest, No. 10 Duke, and previously ranked Pitt and Maryland.

Georgetown’s returners also made an impact in various summer leagues. One standout was sophomore forward Jacob Murrell, who led Annapolis Blues FC in scoring, building on momentum from last fall, where he had seven goals in 21 appearances. The summer work paid off—Murrell scored two of the Hoyas’ goals in their season-opening 3-2 victory over Santa Clara.

With the addition of the freshman class— ranked No. 3 by TopDrawerSoccer—this should be one of the deeper rosters the team has had in recent years.

“We have six freshmen joining us who have all been really integral to our preseason,” Nielsen said. “I think that depth for us this season will play to our advantage.”

“With all six of them, I actually have total confidence in putting them into a game early in the season,” Wiese said in an interview with the Voice. “I think it’s been a pretty seamless transition.”

Sure enough, four of the six saw action sometime in the first three games. They’ll need to be patient before playing major minutes, but with visions of a return to the College Cup, everyone will have to step up when their name is called.

“We know that to achieve those long-term goals, we just gotta take it one by one,” Letayf said.

That starts with figuring out how to bounce back after falling to 2-1-1, as of Sept. 6, following a 3-3 draw to an unranked Fordham on Monday.

While their three goals against Santa Clara and their dominant 4-1 win over then-No. 8 Pitt last Friday were promising offensively, the Hoyas still seem to be adjusting on defense.

But based on strong off-season play and the stacked roster that Wiese has assembled, it wouldn’t be surprising to see the Hoyas playing in Cary, N.C. for a chance at College Cup glory once again this December.

The men’s team will host No. 8 James Madison at Shaw Field on Tuesday, Sept. 19 at 3 p.m. For continued coverage and updates on Georgetown sports, follow @GUVoiceSports on X (formerly known as Twitter). G SEPTEMBER 8, 2023

7

SPORTS FEATURES

An early evaluation of the Ed Cooley Era

BY BEN JAKACBSIN

F

ormer Michigan State football coach Mark Dantonio, in one of my favorite quotes of all time, doubled down on the eternal and fierce rivalry between my beloved Spartans and their intrastate competitors, the Michigan Wolverines.

Today, however, I frame his words of wisdom not in the context of a football game, but on the state of Georgetown's men's basketball program post-Ed Cooley's hiring.

It applies to recruiting, culture, and most notably, the state of the current roster: “It's not over, and it will never be over here. It's just starting.”

Originally, this article was planned for late June, the official end of Cooley’s first 100 days as head coach of the men's basketball team.

After former head coach Patrick Ewing’s exit, the hope was for a more normal offseason following the constant turmoil of the last two years. But then what would have been considered shockingly late roster turnover in a normal year forced me to change my timeframe.

In June, the Hoyas failed to bring on former North Carolina transfer D’Marco Dunn, despite multiple predictions from industry experts that he would suit up in blue and gray.

Surely, I thought, Cooley will pivot quickly and land a different player to fill Dunn’s slot, and that’s when we’ll release this story. That’s what I told myself and my editor. Just a slight delay. Then, just as I was about to publish the piece, reports surfaced of Georgetown looking for another player to round out their rotation.

Then, the news dropped in early August that 8

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

Akok Akok would be leaving the Hoyas to play for West Virginia University.

You get the idea.

I’ve learned that when it comes to this year’s roster, like Coach Dantonio says, “It's not over, and it will never be over here. It's just starting.”

Of course, that is a little dramatic. As it stands today, this Georgetown roster features only nine of the NCAA-allocated 13 possible scholarship players, with a tenth (Drew McKenna) hopefully enrolling soon. That’s certainly enough players to get by and survive a season’s worth of wear and tear, at least in theory. That number doesn’t include walk-ons, of which Georgetown has many, but good teams seldom have walk-ons in the rotation. Typically, Cooley has played with a primary rotation of eight to nine scholarship players, so this year’s team could have one or two to spare.

But this offseason has shown that things can shift at any moment. Do I know for certain if Georgetown is done making roster moves for this upcoming season? No. Does that matter anymore? Also no.

So, with that in mind, let’s finally get into it, shall we?

HIGH SCHOOL RECRUITING From a high school recruiting standpoint, Cooley has exceeded even the highest hopes.

It was no surprise that Cooley got a couple of his best commits from his former school, Providence College, to come to the Hilltop, but the ability of him and his staff to both evaluate and land high-end high school talent has been

a breath of fresh air for the program.

After years of failing to consistently recruit top-end talent a t Providence, due in large part to the generally lackluster patch of talent in Rhode Island, Cooley’s move to a more recruiting-friendly school in Georgetown (given the multitude of talent that has come from the DMV in the past) has helped him to land five four-star prospects since landing on the Hilltop. First, there was former Providence signee and class of 2023 prospect, Drew Fielder, then former Friar commit and 2024 prospect, Kayvaun Mulready. Then, there was Thomas Sorber (class of 2024) from Philadelphia, Drew McKenna from Maryland—who will hopefully join the Hoyas at some point this upcoming season as a member of the class of 2023—and local prospect Caleb Williams (class of 2024).

And Cooley kept going, as if bringing in a three-man class of Sorber, Mulready, and Williams was not enough. Cooley continued his pursuit of players in the class of 2024, most notably bringing in five-star forward Derik Queen for an unofficial visit and building early inroads with priority prospects in the class of 2025 like DMV native guard Acaden Lewis.

Cooley and company have exceeded expectations in the high school recruiting sector. However, I would caution fans against looking at high school team rankings like 247Sports’s, which place the Hoyas in the top five as

design by elin choe

of publication, and thinking that we are now a recruiting powerhouse.

Cooley is notorious for prioritizing retention and experience—his philosophy is oft-referred to as “get old, stay old.” But given the tenuous dance between recruiting highly ranked players and hoping they stay in college long enough to pay dividends for the team, it’s not fair to expect a recruiting performance like Duke and Kentucky, who rely on being able to bring in and replace five-star talent on a yearly basis due to the one-and-done rule. That being said, there is nothing stopping Georgetown from joining UConn and Villanova atop the conference in landing quality talent year after year. For that to happen, though, it will take more than just one recruiting cycle, regardless of how well things have gone so far.

“It's not over, and it will never be over here. It's just starting.”

COLLEGE RECRUITING While Cooley’s level of success on the high school trail has been a pleasant surprise, recruiting active college players through the portal was an area in which many expected Cooley to excel. Dating back to his time at Providence, Cooley has always been able to navigate his way through the transfer portal.

Just a year ago, Cooley brought in major contributors like Bryce Hopkins, Devin Carter, and Corey Floyd, Jr., who helped give the 2022-23 Friars the juice they needed to make last year’s Big Dance. So far, the results at Georgetown have been a little murkier.

But it should be noted that unlike high school prospects, who may commit to a school like Georgetown for the coaching, development, and chance to raise a once-proud program from a period of unmitigated disaster, transfers are looking more for sometimes-gaudy NIL deals, immediate playing time, and winning rosters. As a result, it’s been hard to sell transfer prospects on a team that has gone 13-50 over the past two years. Any and all of these could be reasons that Cooley has shied away from some major transfer recruits. So while he has not gone to Build-A-Roster and built the best group of college basketball bagchasers money can buy, Cooley has brought in a solid group that will work to re-establish the culture of Hoya basketball, helping the younger players develop and keeping the team competitive on the court.

Although the transfer class may technically be all new faces, Cooley and his staff have built years-long relationships with a couple of them dating back to high school.

Take sophomore guard Jayden Epps, for example. He transferred from Illinois, but Cooley and Providence were heavily involved in his initial high school recruitment, which gave them a leg up over other schools with

coaches Epps may not have had an existing relationship with.

Beyond Epps, the group of players that Cooley was able to bring in from the portal have a variety of skill sets. Junior wingforward Dontrez Styles from North Carolina brings massive potential via his impressive athletic ability. Sophomore guard Rowan Brumbaugh (Texas) has good court vision and positional size. Graduate forward Ismael Massoud (Kansas State) brings an incredible three point shooting ability, and senior Supreme Cook (Fairfield) is an excellent rebounder with an even more impressive effort level. Most notably, all but one (Massoud) have multiple years of eligibility remaining.

“It's not over, and it will never be over here. It's just starting.”

The overall roster may not look as terrifying or even necessarily as talented as last season’s team, but a massive upgrade in the coaching department and a clear vision for how these pieces can fit and grow together is cause for real optimism as to what this group can accomplish.

Of course, that’s barring any more seismic shifts in the composition of the roster— something that may have sounded outlandish a few years ago given the old NCAA transfer policy, but is more possible in today’s day and age with the one-time free-transfer rule.

“It's not over, and it will never be over here. It's just starting.”

CULTURE Probably the most important, albeit nebulous, thing that the Cooley regime must accomplish is an improved and revamped culture in and around Georgetown basketball.

But in order to understand where Cooley and Co. are going, we first have to suck it up and acknowledge the situation the program was in when he took over.

Former head coach Patrick Ewing, despite running a program free of major scandals, was not built to be a head coach at the college level, and in this facet, Cooley should be a notable improvement. Despite Ewing’s clear eye for talent (see: his first two recruiting classes where he brought in current NBA players including Ömer Yurtseven, Mac McClung, Jamorko Pickett, James

Akinjo, and others), Georgetown for the last few years has been an incredibly dysfunctional team, and a fair bit of that blame has to be put at Ewing’s feet.

The Mac McClung incident was one great example of this, though there have been several others. All one needs to do is look at the revolving door of players during the last few years to see that there was some mismanagement within the program. Now, to be fair, it seems unlikely that this mismanagement was all Ewing’s fault, but he certainly played a role, and that combination of factors has led the once-proud program to the low place it currently sits.

All of this is to say there that is still work to be done. Players wouldn’t have left in droves if that wasn’t the case. Capital One Arena wouldn’t struggle to fill a student section if it wasn’t the case. Rumors of dysfunction and lack of direction wouldn’t have popped up like weeds in my childhood garden if it wasn’t the case.

Since Cooley took over, we’ve seen him bring along nearly his entire on- and off-thecourt staff from Providence, which is pretty impressive, considering some are Friar alumni. Cooley also started up in-program efforts like The Breakfast Club, a tradition where coaches have breakfast with players, another Providence import. He’s recruited promising high school talents, which could be incredibly impactful if he can keep up that momentum. The new staff brought in a good group of transfers, and with yearslong, preexisting relationships, the staff may have a solid idea for how personalities should mesh together as a team. It doesn’t take much more than a look around campus— or on the team’s social media—to see that times are changing here on the Hilltop.

Whether it’s Cooley visiting new students moving into their dorms or selling basketball tickets outside of Harbin, there’s a new energy buzzing around campus. In a few short months, I have seen or heard of Cooley around campus more than I saw Ewing in my previous two years here combined.

The full effects of Cooley’s strategy won't be apparent for some time, but at least for now, it seems like this staff is pushing all the right buttons when it comes to projecting a revitalized vision of Georgetown basketball.

One thing is clear already: “It's not over, and it will never be over here. It's just starting.” G

SEPTEMBER 8, 2023

9

HALFTIME SPORTS

Running backs: Football’s third estate

BY LANGSTON LEE

“R

ight now, there’s really nothing we can do… We’re the only position that our production hurts us the most. If we go out there and run 2,000 yards with so many carries, the next year, they’re going to say you're probably worn down."

Cleveland Browns running back (RB) Nick Chubb perfectly encapsulates a major problem plaguing the NFL. In July, during the NFL offseason, fellow RB Austin Ekeler of the LA Chargers organized a Zoom call with many of the league’s top backs, including Chubb, to discuss their grievances with their treatment by the league. A number of star RBs were expecting healthy contracts, including Josh Jacobs of the Raiders, who led the league in rushing last year; Saquon Barkley, the former second overall pick of the Giants; and Tony Pollard of the Cowboys, who broke out for over 1,300 yards last year after spending years as a backup. Despite them being highly effective players who (sometimes single-handedly) lifted their offenses all season, none were able to secure a contract longer than the one-year franchise tag, which allows teams to retain players for a flat price without allowing them to negotiate with other teams.

There is a sense among league executives that paying RBs a large contract beyond their cheap rookie deals is not worth the expense. Despite, or perhaps because of the physical toll required of RBs, many franchises are refusing to pay long-term/experienced athletes comparable contracts to their fellow players. Ben Baldwin, an analytics reporter for The Athletic, is one of the so-called “leaders” of a movement that advocates against paying RBs their fair share.

“The results of run plays are primarily determined by run blocking and defenders in the box, not who is carrying the ball. Running backs are interchangeable,” Baldwin wrote on his website. “From an ownership perspective, it makes no sense to heavily invest in the position (be that through money or draft capital) if you can draft a younger, cheaper version every time their contract expires

10

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

rather than extending said contract for large sums of money.”

In some regards, the owners have a point.

Even among elite RBs, production often declines significantly with age. Only 12 running backs have been able to make the All-Pro team past the age of 28 since the year 2000, and only three since 2010. Paradoxically, the amount of labor that a RB produces actually serves to limit his earning potential, because teams don’t want to invest money in players who theoretically don’t have much tread left on their tires. It’s a catch-22 for these athletes; if they don’t produce satisfactory results for their teams they won't get paid, but if they work too hard they still won’t get paid because teams are worried they’ll just be “stale goods.”

This isn’t just a problem that affects the pros.

Since 2000, 27 Division I players have left college with over 900 rushing attempts in their careers.

When it came time for the draft, 10 of those players went undrafted, another 10 were drafted in the final few rounds, and only three were drafted in the first.

Only seven of those players went on to start over 10 games in the NFL, and only six of them remained in the league for over five seasons, many of their careers cut short due to injury. For many of these players, their prime years in terms of both health and football ability arrive during their college years, where their income is limited by NCAA rules. By the time they’re able to make real money off their work, their bodies have broken down, and pro teams don’t want them. The advent of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals has somewhat addressed this problem by allowing players to make money off their likeness, but even then, the deals are chump change compared to the money

they could be making in the pros. Michigan’s Blake Corum has the biggest NIL deal of all Division I RBs at a little over $1 million, less than a standard rookie contract, according to On3.

RBs are disrespected by fans and general managers who see their labor as fungible, overworked by coaches at all levels of play, and underpaid by owners who prioritize their bottom lines over fair labor practices. But, as Chubb says, there’s seemingly nothing to be done. The NFL Players Association and the league negotiate a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) every 10 years, with the current one slated to expire in 2030.

In all likelihood, 90 percent of the RBs in the league today will have retired by the time they can negotiate for better conditions. Colts owner Jim Irsay caused some controversy on X (formerly known as Twitter) when he insinuated that running backs were acting “inappropriately” and “in bad faith” by looking to renegotiate the CBA. Irsay said what most owners feel: they’re just fine with how the RB market works, because the market works for them. His statement isn’t just an example of a man voicing his opinions, it’s a business owner cracking down on his employees threatening to strike.

So is a football revolution coming? Will the RBs of the world unite to overthrow the ruling class?

Highly doubtful. After a summer of threatening holdouts, Jacobs, Barkley, and Pollard all returned back to their teams on the dreaded franchise tag, and RB Jonathan Taylor remains on the Colts despite his very public trade request. We are seemingly back to the football status quo.

But the long-term stability of the situation has to be questioned. How many kids are going to want to play running back when they know it’s the most dangerous position in mainstream American sports, especially when they see how poorly treated the players are? The players are still willing to play despite contract difficulties, but this lack of respect may cause the talent pool to dry up. It wouldn’t be the first time this has happened. The fullback was once a staple of NFL offenses; now, most teams don’t carry a single one. Football is ever-evolving, and the RBs might be the ones left behind. G

design by connor martin; photo courtesy of eric drost cc 2.0

NEWS

60th anniversary of March on Washington is a testament to activist determination

BY ANDREA HO

S

ixty years after Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his renowned “I Have a Dream” speech, almost 75,000 people gathered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to rally for equal rights on Saturday, Aug. 26.

Over 300 buses carried people from more than two dozen historically Black colleges and universities, as well as states including Georgia, Alabama, and New York. Amid the sweltering heat, activists gathered from a range of organizations, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, the Human Rights Campaign, March for Our Lives, and Planned Parenthood to advocate for their respective progressive causes.

Representing the National Black Justice Coalition, Ollie Henry (CAS ’24) became the first ever nonbinary speaker at the March on Washington, alongside Hope Giselle, who became the first transgender speaker. Henry urged that more must be done to “push the boundaries of radical inclusivity” in these activist spaces.

In their speech, Henry compared the community to a garden where not all plants were equally tended to, in reference to queer people being denied access to basic resources like safe housing and affirmative healthcare.

Continuing the metaphor of a garden, Henry wore green pleated pants, lavender heels, and a white button-down with lavender flowers, lavender being a color long associated with queer empowerment.

Due to wheelchair inaccessibility on the stage, they also used a lavender cane for mobility.

“My outfit alluded to the importance of lavender in calling out to other queer folks and I thought that was a beautiful way of calling in my community through time and space,” Henry said in an interview with the Voice. “I find it important to pay attention to what I wore because it’s about embodying my praxis. Through and through, I’m here for Black queer liberation, and that flows through the words I speak to the clothes I wear to the ways I take up space to the ways I love.”

Henry’s call for equal rights for queer people aligned with the March on Washington’s historical focus on social justice and civil rights. This year’s organizers were Martin Luther King III, the eldest

graphic by andrea ho; layout by olivia li

son of King Jr. and other members of the King family, as well as civil rights activist Reverend Al Sharpton. They emphasized that the March on Washington was “not a commemoration, but a continuation.”

“We are here today to continue our march to a more perfect union; to fight racism, antisemitism, and hatred in any form; for voting rights, civil rights, working rights, LGBTQ+ rights, racial justice, social justice, economic justice, climate justice, free and fair elections, equal protection under the law; to make America the best version of herself,” House Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said from the podium.

The five-hour program featured high-profile speakers ranging from members of Congress and religious leaders to actors and nonprofit executives.

Prominent civil rights activist Andrew Young was among the speakers. At 91, Young is one of the last surviving members of King Jr.’s inner circle and was one of the key organizers of the original 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

“I’m Andrew Young and I’ve been here before,” he said to rousing cheers and applause. “It’s been a long but wonderful struggle and I’m here to tell you that I don’t feel tired.”

Many speakers referenced the erasure of Black history, voter suppression, and the recent spate of conservative Supreme Court decisions—including the rollback of affirmative action in college admissions and the overturning of abortion rights— as threats to democracy.

Yolanda Renee King, King Jr.’s 15-year-old granddaughter, highlighted that her generation faced “the triple evils of poverty, bigotry, and violence,” as well as “global boiling.”

“We need to do more than end racism and poverty. We need to save our planet,” she said.

“Cynicism is a luxury that my generation can’t afford. That’s why I believe my generation will be defined by action, not apathy.”

Attendees of the march spanned several generations, including college students, Black fraternities and sororities, Black churches, unions, and returning activists from 1963.

While celebrating the progress of the civil rights movement, they echoed that these problems were not new.

“I was here in 1963, 1993, 2013, and I’m here today, at age 77,” Betty Waller Gray, an attendee who had traveled from Richmond, Virginia, told the Voice. “My mother was a civil rights activist, and she actually received an award from prison in 1948 for getting people registered to vote. At that time to register to vote was $1.50, which was a lot of money in 1948. She continued to be active in civil rights, and I took the torch and ran with it.”

Despite the supposed centrality of inclusivity and equitability to the March on Washington, several attendees noted flaws with the programming. Henry, for instance, commented on the atmosphere of apathy and even outright disdain towards queer people.

“We found ourselves sitting with how queer we really were in this space. We were acutely aware that we were outsiders, even though this was a movement by those dedicated to Black liberation,” they said to the Voice. “My partner and I were verbally harassed after my remarks. I’m extremely grateful to be the first nonbinary person to speak at the event, but in being the first, that doesn’t mean that the space was built for inclusivity, that there was scaffolding to make sure that we were supported at the table where a seat was pulled up for us.”

Criticism was also directed towards the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which served as the event’s co-chair. Numerous organizations opposed to Israel’s oppression of Palestinians protested by flyering the steps of the Lincoln Memorial with infographics about the ADL’s defense of Zionism under the hashtag #DropTheADL. A day prior, the Palestinian Youth Movement also launched a teach-in about the ADL’s history of surveilling and repressing progressive movements.

The March on Washington, nevertheless, maintained a message of solidarity. Many speakers emphasized the beauty of community amid seemingly insurmountable challenges and expressed hope that, in Sharpton’s words, “the dreamers will win.”

Quoting his father, Martin Luther King III said, “How long till we get our freedom? Not long, because the arc of the universe is long but it bends towards justice. Let’s not give up, let’s not give in, let’s not give out.” G SEPTEMBER 8, 2023

11

HALFTIME LEISURE

Good Omens season two is a tale of queerness and Christianity

BY CAROLINE SAMOLUK

Spoiler warning for Good Omens season two

A

n angel and a demon. Heaven and Hell.

Eternal enemies—until they fall in love. One would think this is the plot of a preteen's fanfic writing debut, but in reality, it’s the plot of the highly anticipated second season of Good Omens, released this summer on Prime Video.

Based on Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett’s quirky yet brilliant novel Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch, the series follows an angel and demon who team up to prevent the destruction of their beloved world.

Building on the first season’s broad exploration of the moral quandaries of Christian theology, season two is a welcome return to the show’s trademark humor and wholesome relationship dynamics. More notably, however, this season expanded upon the subtle queer undertones of its predecessor through its targeted dive into the intricacies of love, loyalty, and the potential for systemic change in the Heaven-Hell dichotomy.

Whereas season one almost directly translated the events of its source material, the events of season two are entirely original.

It picks up where its predecessor left off, with the angel Aziraphale (Michael Sheen) and the demon Crowley (David Tennant) living peacefully following their successful avoidance of Armageddon. That is, until the Supreme Archangel Gabriel (Jon Hamm) appears at Aziraphale's bookshop door without his memory (or his clothes). In the wake of his disappearance, the corporate offices of Heaven and Hell desperately search for him while grappling with the power vacuum left in his absence. This leaves our dynamic demon and angel duo forced to notso-begrudgingly work together and figure out what happened to Gabriel while avoiding the agents of Heaven and Hell.

In contrast to the complex web of plots and characters that was a hallmark of the first season, season two opts for a much simpler approach.

Though jarring at first, the simplicity of the second season leaves room for the story to hone in on Crowley and Aziraphale's layered relationship.

The tension between the two is as old as time itself. By slowing the pace, the audience can watch in greater detail as Crowley comes to terms with his feelings for the adorable angel, and Aziraphale discovers what it is about that devilish demon which eternally attracts him.

The pair's budding romance has more significance than your typical ship. After the first season’s release, some fans accused the show of queerbaiting: alluding to queer relationships to draw a bigger audience without actually 12

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

delivering. Other buddy comedies are often guilty of this marketing ploy—whether intentionally or not—psychologically taxing and devaluing their queer viewers. After the events of Good Omens’s second season, though, there is no room left to deny that Crowley and Aziraphale’s mutual feelings were a slow burn rather than a farce.

Crowley’s realization that he’s not the evil bad boy he believed himself to be is integral to this development, which we see as he tries to play matchmaker for another couple. He spends an exorbitant amount of time and effort trying to make Nina (Nina Sosanya), a coffee shop owner, and Maggie (Maggie Service), a record shop owner who has been pining after Nina for years, fall in love.

His development is further captured by key moments throughout the season that unveil the true nature of the angel and demon's relationship.

It is made abundantly clear that their trust for one another goes beyond friendship when Crowley lets Aziraphale borrow his treasured car (which also serves as his permanent residence) and when Aziraphale allows Crowley to shoot a bullet right past his face, despite the demon having never fired a gun before.

All these moments were a perfect build to what is hands-down the best moment of the entire show: the kiss. Oh, the kiss. In this scene, Crowley finally works up the nerve to somewhat confess his feelings for the angel and frantically kisses him as a last-ditch attempt to win him over. Devastatingly, Aziraphale rejects Crowley’s offer to run away together, resigning himself to the fallacious dichotomy between good and evil. Aziraphale instead chooses to take on the job of Supreme Archangel, alienating himself from Crowley in the process. To make matters worse, Aziraphale shows a shocking

apathy towards Crowley's agency when he tries to make Crowley an angel again.

Their conflicting priorities demonstrate that Crowley knows a truth Aziraphale has yet to learn: their relationship cannot thrive within the constraints of Heaven and Hell. The show suggests that queerness cannot exist within the current moral framework of conservative Christianity, and Aziraphale must let go of his black-and-white way of thinking in order for them to be together.

The gripping—if agonizingly slow— buildup of Crowley and Aziraphale’s romance is a testament to Sheen’s and Tennant’s acting prowess. They don’t just inhabit their characters, they become Aziraphale and Crowley. Everything, from Crowley's trademark swagger to Aziraphale’s tears as Crowley walks out of his bookshop after kissing him, is executed flawlessly.

As Good Omens giveth, so too does it taketh away. Despite the horror of Aziraphale preventing the couple from being, as Crowley says, "an us," it is still a massive moment for the series. This bittersweet scene beautifully illustrates just how far Crowley has come and how far Aziraphale has to go. While the demon has taken responsibility for his emotions, the angel still hasn't quite faced the music about his love for Crowley, nor has he accepted the fact that Heaven does not employ the cosmic good guys.

Though the next season is yet to be confirmed, the promise of what is to come for Crowley and Aziraphale makes the continuation of their story an absolute necessity. Whether it be in the depths of Hell, on the far-off star of Alpha-Centauri, or right here on earth, Crowley and Aziraphale are meant to be together. G

design by olivia li

HALFTIME LEISURE

Heartstopper season two is tender and unapologetically queer

BY AJANI JONES

Content warning: This article discusses sexual assault, eating disorders, depression, emotional abuse, and self-harm.

Spoiler warning for Heartstopper season 2

D

efining “love” is an impossible task.

From the biblical and philosophical to the romantic and platonic, love has always been a common storytelling thread. When viewed through the lens of queerness, seeking definition becomes even more complex. This summer was chock-full of highly anticipated releases navigating the less explored themes of queer love; and yet, the question remains: “what does it mean to love and be loved?”

Season two of Netflix’s Heartstopper dares to search for an answer. This season opens with the return of the darling new couple, high schoolers Nick Nelson (Kit Connor) and Charlie Spring (Joe Locke), as the pair learns to navigate something entirely new: sincere and unapologetic queer love, and acceptance of the security of their bond.

To develop this burgeoning relationship, the second season opens by paralleling and juxtaposing the first. In season one, Charlie was simply overjoyed at the thought of Ben Hope (Sebastian Croft) reciprocating his feelings (before having his hopes dashed); this season, he can relax into the comfort of his relationship with Nick. As the pair traverses love together, they become each other’s anchors in the whirlwind life of queer teenagers.

Punctuated by subtle touches and tender looks, Nick and Charlie’s romance blossoms beautifully. The pair have palpable chemistry, likely helped by the actors’ off-screen friendship.

There is never a question of their affection for one another—a welcome departure from Charlie’s previous romantic experiences.

Moments of tribulation only add depth to their relationship, demonstrating its solid foundation. Over the eight episodes, we slowly learn more about Charlie’s ongoing battle with an eating disorder parallel to Nick’s journey towards full self-acceptance. The series tactfully handles this heavy topic by showing how much it weighs on Charlie, sans blame or glorification. Instead, each episode provides glimpses into Charlie’s internal struggles while the audience, alongside Nick, slowly realizes the true depth of his struggle.

The audience also witnesses the fallout from Charlie’s toxic relationship with his ex-situationship Ben, which diminished his

sense of self-worth and his capacity to self-advocate.

Throughout the season, Ben’s looming presence consistently reminds Charlie of Ben’s sexual assault and emotional neglect, only worsening his already degrading mental health and struggles with his eating disorder.

At the end of the season, Charlie opens up to Nick, confessing that he used to self-harm as a result of constant bullying. In response, Nick doesn’t ask Charlie to be happy or never self-harm again—all he asks is that Charlie allow Nick to be there for him. In this moment, there are neither expectations nor judgment. It’s just them. The series handles this scene tenderly, not forcing Charlie into vulnerability nor pretending that Nick is a magical remedy for his mental health struggles. Steeped in the rawness of their mutual vulnerability, this scene perfectly encapsulates their dynamic.

As an unsaid “I love you” lingers, Nick’s reassurance to Charlie that “you don’t have to be perfect with me” rings true.

Although Nick and Charlie remain the serie's primary focus, Heartstopper masterfully navigates the arcs of its supporting cast. From Tao’s (William Gao) abandonment issues and the implications they have on his budding relationship with Elle (Yasmin Finney) to the impact of Darcy’s (Kizzy Edgell) emotionally abusive mother on her relationship with Tara (Corinna Brown), season two does an amazing job of thoughtfully fleshing out its characters’ unions. But Isaac’s (Tobie Donovan) arc this season strays away from the romantic focus of his peers’ storylines.

Instead, he works on coming to terms with his aromantic and asexual identities after questioning why, unlike his peers, he lacked romantic interests. This representation is incredibly important, as it is very rare that identities along the ace spectrum get much focus—if any at all—in queer media.

Even beyond the exploration of romantic love, season two excels in spotlighting other forms of love. The characters’ interpersonal bonds this season are phenomenal. The cast’s off-screen closeness shines through in every scene as they effortlessly bounce off one another. When Tao and Nick bond after a rough start to their relationship in the season prior, and when Elle becomes closer with

design by lou jacquin; photos courtesy of netflix

the girls at her school, we see the platonic relationships shine just as brightly as their romantic counterparts.

Family also takes center stage this season. As usual, Charlie’s older sister Tori (Jenny Walser) remains a constant pillar of support in his life, a counterpart to Nick’s antagonistic older brother, David (Jack Barton). Each episode also explores the impact of parental role models in the lives of queer youths. While some mothers in the show have remained steadfast in their support, other parents exemplify the negative impact that unsupportive adult figures can have on young adults. This makes the nonfamilial role models—like school faculty members Mr. Ajayi (Fisayo Akinade), Mr. Farouk (Nima Taleghani), and Coach Singh (Chetna Pandya)—stand out as excellent queer role models for the young characters.

As the icing to this season’s cake, the series’ signature cartoonish animations and stellar soundtrack add an extra element of whimsy. Songs like Wasia Project’s “ur so pretty” and mxmtoon’s “coming of age” perfectly score their respective scenes. The animations are also integral to the series, as they speak volumes where words would simply fail. In one instance, Ben stands inches from a roiling wave of rainbows, with the chance of finding a queer community and acceptance calling out to the tune of harps, piano, and a soothing beach. Yet he walks away, leading the waves to pull back, and a dull and potent silence falls over the scene as he retreats into the shadows. Without excusing his horrible actions, this scene shows that Ben, like many others, stands just on the edge of making a change for himself, but he’s held back by the internalized homophobia that plagues him.

By continuing character arcs from its predecessor, season two capitalized on the show’s existing momentum and hit its stride beautifully, treating all its subject matter with care while maintaining the tenderness for which fans have come to adore the series. Cliché as it may be, love does not boil down to symbiotic perfection nor tragedy-borne connections. Rather, Heartstopper tells its audience that to love and be loved is simply to be cared for. And sometimes, that’s enough.G SEPTEMBER 8, 2023

13

EDITORIALS

Georgetown’s Socially Responsible Investing policy means nothing without accountability

BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD

G

eorgetown prides itself on its Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) policy. It remains complicit, however, in unethical investments in harmful companies.

The SRI policy’s mission statement, created in 2017, emphasizes the university’s intent to “integrate its commitment to social justice, protection of human life and dignity, stewardship for the planet, and promotion of the common good into its investment management practices.” According to the mission statement, Georgetown will not invest in unethical companies, notably companies with an “extremely deleterious” effect on the environment or those that are engaged in the production of weapons intended to be used for indiscriminate violence. The Committee on Investments and Social Responsibility (CISR), an advisory board, examines the university’s investments and subsequently makes recommendations on how these investments could become more aligned with Georgetown’s SRI policy.

Despite the university’s intentions, Georgetown’s current public investments—enabled by a weak SRI policy and an unrepresentative, opaque CISR—demonstrate that current mechanisms do not promote real social responsibility in investing.

The editorial board recommends several reforms to democratize and strengthen CISR so that it may be held accountable to Georgetown’s SRI policy.

Student organizers have seen moderate success in the past in pressuring Georgetown to partially divest from South African apartheid and pledge full divestment from fossil fuels. While these examples show that divestment activism can be effective, there are institutional barriers to organizing a successful divestment campaign. While we recognize that divestment requires serious forethought and planning given the sheer amount of money in Georgetown’s investment portfolio— roughly $1.08 billion in combined publiclytraded investments, private equity, and venture capital, according to our calculations—unethical investments have serious material consequences for certain marginalized communities. We believe an effective commitment to socially responsible investment requires clear avenues for good faith dialogue between student organizers and investors, which Georgetown currently lacks.

At each step along the way to request a divestment from an unethical corporation, students face challenges that limit their advocacy. First, students must write a proposal to CISR including their aim, rationale, and strategy. The proposal must also include why divestment would be more effective than “engagement,” an alternative practice of letter writing, proxy voting, or dialogue 14

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

to stop corporations from engaging in SRIincompatible investments. While some research suggests engagement can be more effective than divestment, divestment can ensure Georgetown’s investments don’t contribute to harmful practices, especially considering that engagement cannot fix corporations that are inherently problematic, such as weapons manufacturers.

Next, student proposals must be evaluated by CISR, a process hampered by the lack of student representation. Of the 12 outlined CISR positions, only four are designated for students: one student from GUSA, the Georgetown University Law Center Student Bar Association, the Graduate Student Association, and one of the student investment funds. (Student representation is further limited because, according to the membership list, the law center seat is currently vacant.) The remaining positions are reserved for faculty members, representatives of Campus Ministry and the investment office, and presidentdesignated appointees.

We strongly believe half of CISR should be students. Last year’s financial report found that student tuition and fees made up over 46 percent of operating revenue, which doesn’t reflect additional revenue from room and board. Georgetown University cannot exist without the revenue generated through student tuition. SRI was only developed because of student activism around fossil fuel divestment. Socially conscious investment must orient itself around student organizers and ideas, and expanded representation on CISR is one way to improve the system.

The next challenge of crafting a divestment proposal is assessing Georgetown’s investments.

Georgetown holds over $100 million in publicly traded assets self-reported every fiscal quarter to the Securities and Exchange Commission and published online. In Georgetown’s most recent disclosure, filed in August, Georgetown reported direct investments in some corporations, but it also reported over $100 million in investments through third-party investing companies, including iShares ETF and Invesco QQQ. How these third parties invest Georgetown’s money remains inaccessible.

There is some indication that these external investors are using Georgetown’s investments for unethical purposes, even if specific investments remain unlisted. For example, Georgetown invested over $40 million in iShares, which in turn invested about two percent of its total investments into producers of nuclear weapons and tobacco products, as well as companies involved with controversial weapons such as cluster munitions and biological weapons. The same fund also ranks in the 21st percentile compared to other funds in its peer groups when it comes to Environmental,

Social, and Governance (ESG) strategy.

The iShares fund, according to its website, “does not seek to follow a sustainable, impact or ESG investment strategy.”

This is in spite of Georgetown’s policy to favor companies with superior ESG strategies.

Many of the university’s disclosed investments also go to companies with poor track records when it comes to human rights and social justice. For example, Georgetown’s endowment has invested $19.5 million into Berkshire Hathaway, a multinational conglomerate with subsidiaries that use prison labor. Other recipients of Georgetown’s multimillion dollar investments, including Amazon and Starbucks, present disturbing patterns of workers’ rights violations. Furthermore, some listed companies contribute to the ongoing Israeli apartheid in occupied Palestine. Google and Amazon jointly entered into a contract to build a cloud computing system for the Israeli government and military, including AI technology for facial detection, which would solidify Israel’s surveillance infrastructure of Palestinians.

Georgetown’s investment in these companies is only the tip of the iceberg; the university doesn’t disclose its private investments, including companies not publicly listed on stock exchanges. According to Georgetown’s

design by dane tedder

fiscal year 2 0 2 2 financial statement, the university currently i n v e s t s approximately $313 million in private equity and $486 million in venture capital. Without accessible information on these private investments, students and donors have no means of holding the university accountable to its SRI policy.

The opacity surrounding the university’s investments poses real challenges for students organizing for divestment. Most recently, in March, CISR rejected a proposal to divest from companies connected to the oppression of Uyghurs and other Turkic minorities in China. CISR wrote that it has “not invested in companies ‘that have demonstrated records of widespread violations of human dignity’ in China.”

While this statement may be true for the public companies and many of the third party investment companies, it is impossible to fully verify.

Besides investments, we are also concerned about the committee’s lack of transparency when it comes to their decision-making process. According to their Principles and Operating Guidelines, all deliberations remain confidential, unless CISR chooses to publicly disseminate information.

There is no explicit requirement for the committee to open meetings for student feedback or to invite proposal authors to speak, further hindering democratic decision-making.

The reasons behind a rejected proposal have empirically been flimsy at best, if not blatantly false or unclear. For example, a 2017 proposal for divestment from the violent Israeli occupation of Palestine

was rejected because “divestment would not be an effective tactic to end hostilities or promote a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” However, there is evidence for the opposite claim. Divestment was integral to dismantling apartheid in South Africa. Israel’s oppression of Palestinians has widely been characterized as apartheid, and both Palestinian and South African organizers have called for forms of divestment from Israel. Despite the historical precedent supporting the student organizers’ calls for divestment, Georgetown refused without any refutation. CISR needs a more democratic and transparent process for students to understand how decisions are made.

Even if we suppose that CISR’s work and recommendations are fully reflective of Georgetown’s SRI policy, any recommendation it makes is simply that—a recommendation. CISR has no binding power to change Georgetown’s investment portfolio; Georgetown’s Board of Directors has the final say in divestment decisions, highlighting a lack of organizational will to fully commit to socially responsible investments. We believe CISR should have more institutional power to hold the Board of Directors accountable.

Beyond having no power over Georgetown’s investment portfolio, Georgetown alarmingly has no control over where third-party companies invest its money. It is stated that external investment managers “will be asked to incorporate the strategies” of Georgetown’s SRI policy and that they should “notify the Investment Office if they make investments that are in conflict with this policy.”

But without a robust framework to hold external investment managers accountable, Georgetown cannot guarantee that their investments are ethical.

Because of this lack of oversight of third-party companies, it seems that the university uses investing in them as an avenue to bypass accountability to its SRI policy. For example, when students raised concerns about investments in prison labor, CISR agreed that the students’ concerns were valid, but dismissed a student proposal to divest from prison labor on the grounds that it was “too broad,” because the aforementioned proposal called for divestment not only from prison labor but also from third-party companies who invest in prison labor.

Georgetown’s policy stresses its goal of investing in a manner “consistent with its Catholic mission and Jesuit identity.” However, Georgetown’s unethical investments contradict the values at the core of its Jesuit identity. For instance, the Jesuit value of ‘Faith that Does Justice’ describes an “obligation to address the social realities of poverty, oppression and injustice in our world,” but by investing in corporations complicit in worker abuse, prison labor, and Israeli apartheid, Georgetown violates that mission.

This hypocrisy isn’t accidental either—it’s systemically embedded in Georgetown’s SRI policy itself. The policy states that Georgetown will only entertain socially responsible investments “provided that these investments target a market rate of return on par with similar assets in the endowment” and explicitly states that Georgetown “will not entertain” concessionary returns—returns

on investments that sacrifice some level of financial gain to achieve a social benefit.

It is reasonable for investors to dismiss investments that are financial losses, but that is not what the policy says. It says that even if there’s an alternative and profitable investment opportunity that is socially responsible, Georgetown will still favor an unethical investment if it earns more money. However, a commitment to ethical investing sometimes requires settling for a smaller profit margin for the sake of the common good.

For Georgetown’s SRI policy to be anything more than performative, there are several actions the university must take. First, we need transparency. How can we hold Georgetown’s investments accountable if we don’t know where they are going? The university may argue that it cannot be fully transparent because it too doesn't know where its money goes when it is invested in hedge funds or external investors. This argument, however, would simply be an admission about the profound limitations of its SRI policy.

In order to ensure transparency and accountability, the university ought to conduct an SRI audit, ideally run by an independent entity, to ensure our investments are consistent with our stated values. Further, these reports ought to be made public, detailing the specific industries, companies, and locations in which the university is investing. This is slowly becoming more popular; other universities, such as the University of Pittsburgh, have implemented yearly ESG reports.

Research even shows that effective SRI policies can increase donations. One study found that adoption of SRI policies at universities led to a 6 percent increase in donations as well as more student applications. Simply put, donors—and students—feel more comfortable putting their money toward a university when they know where that money is going.

Not only should CISR increase student representation both on the committee and the deliberation process, the board must be given more binding powers when it comes to enforcing Georgetown’s SRI policy. In a similar vein, any recommendations for ethical investing—regardless of monetary loss—should be prioritized above profit.

Finally, we echo the demands of global activists and student organizers and urge Georgetown to divest from all corporations engaged in human rights abuses and violations of justice and peace in our common home. If Georgetown instead pursues engagement with problematic corporations rather than divestment, we demand that Georgetown release comprehensive documentation of its efforts to pressure corporations into changing their practices, such as through proxy votes or written letters. If engagement proves unsuccessful, Georgetown must transition to divestment.

For Georgetown to live up to its mission of socially responsible investment, it needs both systemic changes to ensure transparency and accountability as well as a genuine commitment to divest from groups committing ongoing social atrocities. G SEPTEMBER 8, 2023

15