021220

SANDERS AND WARREN TIE AT HYDE PARK SATELLITE CAUCUS

FEBRUARY 12, 2020 SIXTH WEEK VOL. 132, ISSUE 15

PAGE 2

An organizer with UChicago for Bernie knocks on a door in Mechanicsville, Iowa—a town with a population of just over 1,000—days before the caucus. avi waldman

Students with UChicago for Warren canvass in Des Moines, Iowa. laura gersony

A student with UChicago for Pete knocks on doors in Newton, Iowa. alex dalton

UChicago Organizers Fan Out to Early States OP-ED: Don’t Neglect These Down-Ballot Races

LETTER: Graduate Students to Faculty: Join Us in Seeking a More Democratic University

GREY CITY: Green City: Chicago’s First Weeks of Legal Marijuana Raise Questions

ARTS: King Princess Is Annoying, But Her Concert Was Fun Anyway

PAGE 9

PAGE 7

PAGE 10

PAGE 15

Like our Facebook page at facebook.com/chicagomaroon and follow @chicagomaroon on Instagram and Twitter to get the latest updates on campus news.

chicagomaroon.com

THE CHICAGO MAROON — FEBRUARY 12, 2020

2

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Tie for Delegates at Hyde Park Satellite Caucus

By ALEXIS FLORENCE Senior News Reporter Senators Bernie Sanders (A.B. ’64) and Elizabeth Warren both received two delegates at the Iowa satellite caucus at University Church on 57th Street and University Avenue on February 3. Buttigieg was awarded the remaining out of the site’s five delegates, which contribute to the overall state results.

The Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) introduced satellite caucuses for the first time this election cycle, approving a total of 110 locations.

24 Iowans came out to the Hyde Park location to declare their support for candidates in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary.

At 7 p.m., Hannah Gregor, a first-year graduate student at the School of Social Service Administration and the elected caucus chair, promptly called the caucus to order with a statement from the IDP Chair Troy Price. Quoting Price, she said, “Together we can turn Iowa blue and take back the White House.”

Gregor and fellow Iowan, James Skretta, a Ph.D. student in the music department, organized the satellite location.

In the final results of the first round, all candidates with support were considered viable, so there was no need for a second round alignment. Warren won

over the room with 11 caucus-goers. Nine caucus-goers supported Sanders, and four supported Pete Buttigieg.

Third-year Amiela Canin, from Iowa, participated in the 2016 IDP caucus and expressed gratitude for this year’s satellite locations, saying it was helpful for Iowans unable to travel to the state.

“I really appreciate it as a matter of convenience because it would be hard for me and a lot of other people to leave their daily life to go out of state,” Canin said. “On the whole I think it’s a great thing that we have satellite caucuses; it obviously enables people who could not otherwise caucus.”

Johnny Stevens, a North Side Chicago resident from Iowa, was unable to attend the 2016 caucus, the first he was eligible to participate in, because he was going to college in California.

Stevens said he was not surprised by the results and feels the satellite caucus results will differ from the larger results in Iowa, saying, “A lot of them are at universities, so I think that skews it from the ones back home.”

In addition to participants in the caucus, the Hyde Park location had more than 30 observers, some of whom advocated for candidates directly with caucus-goers.

Third-year Laura Sieh urged voters to support Andrew Yang, speaking about his electability and his plans for a universal basic income.

Geoff Stone speaks on behalf on of his former student Amy Klobuchar. jeremy lindenfeld

Participants sign in at the Iowa satellite caucus. jeremy lindenfeld During a series of three talks advocating for specific candidates, UChicago law professor Geoffrey Stone stood in the middle of the room ahead of the firstround alignment and spoke in support of his former student Amy Klobuchar (J.D. ’85).

“That’s a critical factor, it’s getting a candidate who can win this election and get Donald Trump out of office and bring the democrats back to power. Amy, when it’s all said and done, is the person I am most confident has the ability to do that,” Stone said.

Advocates for Yang and Warren also spoke to the room after the formal start of the caucus.

Students from a UChicago class taught

by Erin McFee, Political Anthropology, also came to observe and talk to caucus-goers.

The results were announced by Gregor at the end of the evening. Afterward, caucus-goers were given the opportunity to advocate for party platform resolutions; however, no participants offered any platform suggestions, so the caucus was adjourned.

A supporter of Andrew Yang makes a pitch for his candidate. jeremy lindenfeld

THE CHICAGO MAROON — FEBRUARY 12, 2020

3

The Maroon x Iowa Caucuses

By CAROLINE KUBZANSKY Managing Editor-elect Four Maroon reporters covered the run-up to the Iowa caucuses as reporters embedded with UChicago’s three major student groups supporting candidates: UChicago for Bernie Sanders, UChicago for Pete Buttigieg, and UChicago for Elizabeth Warren. On caucus night, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (A.B. ’64) and former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg took 26.1 and 26.2 percent of support from Iowa caucus-goers, respectively. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren took third place with 18 percent.

Two other UChicago alumni also competed in the caucuses: Amy Klobuchar (J.D. ’85) took 12.3 percent of Democratic support and Joe Walsh (M.P.P. ’91) took 1.1 percent of Republican caucus-goers in a long-

shot bid to challenge President Trump.

This year’s caucuses were fraught: A bungled last statewide poll before the caucuses left campaigns, supporters, and caucus-goers without a projection for who would win Iowa; and caucus officials faced difficulties using the app meant to collect and tabulate local caucus results, which delayed a full set of outcomes for days. At one point, the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) had to retract a batch of results due to an error that showed Deval Patrick and Tom Steyer having more support than they actually had.

The IDP released 100 percent of the results on February 6, three days after Iowans caucused. As of February 10, the Associated Press says it is still unable to declare a winner, and the Buttigieg and Sanders campaigns requested partial re-canvasses on Monday. Tom Perez, the head of the

Democratic National Party, also called for a re-canvass on February 5.

Electoral chaos notwithstanding, UChicago for Warren is planning to build its support on Warren’s third-place finish ahead of the March 17 Illinois primary, where 184 delegates to the Democratic National Convention are up for grabs.

Buttigieg exceeded his poll projections in Iowa, garnering 26.2 percent of support when he had been predicted, in the most recently published Iowa poll from January, to only take 16 percent of likely caucus-goers.

“After a successful Iowa caucus, we plan on expanding our organizing on campus— putting on phone banks and canvasses, especially ahead of the Illinois primary later this spring,” second-year organizer Zander Arnao said.

UChicago for Bernie, which brought about 130 student volunteers to Iowa for

the weekend before the caucuses, met on Monday to discuss their next steps. Organizers with UChicago for Bernie have asked for every member of their mailing list to commit to canvassing one hour each week until the primary.

“With our experience from Iowa, UChicago for Bernie is excited to double down on our efforts to win the Illinois primary with near-daily canvassing, phone banking, and other events on and off campus. We’re also continuing to organize with students from around the region—on February 19, the first day of early voting in Chicago, we’re convening a large group of students to vote together for Bernie downtown,” Kirsten “Kit” Ginzky (A.B. ’15) said.

New Hampshire, the first primary state in the country, voted on Tuesday. With 26 percent of the vote as of Tuesday night, Sanders was announced the winner.

Sanders Addresses UChicago For Bernie at Canvas Kickoff Event

By AVI WALDMAN Grey City Editor IOWA CITY, Iowa— Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (A.B. ’64) kicked off a canvas launch at his campaign’s Iowa City field office on Sunday afternoon.

After the event, a crowd of an estimated 200 supporters dispersed to knock doors around Iowa City.

The office’s back room, where Sanders was scheduled to speak, filled to capacity well before the candidate arrived. Musician Lia Rose warmed up the waiting crowd with a rendition of Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are a-Changin’ ” from a viral fan-made video of Sanders.

Supporters were almost as excited to see Nina Turner, Sanders’ campaign cochair, as they were to see Sanders, chanting her name as she entered and cheering throughout her speech. Turner emphasized the diversity of perspectives within the campaign, calling it a “rainbow mosaic.”

“Let’s invite our friends and our frenemies to this party,” Turner said. “Isn’t it wonderful that in this people-powered, multi-generational, multi-gendered, multi-racial movement we are in that we are saying to this nation and to the world that we want for others what we want for ourselves.”

Turner argued against the idea that Sanders is not electable due to the perception of his policies as radical and said that those criticizing the Senator’s proposals were not well-informed about the realities of daily American life.

“People in this country wax poetic on national TV and talk about how Senator Sanders can’t win or [how] he is a little too radical,” Turner said. “See, when you have a castle view, baby, you don’t understand what’s going on in the streets. It is time to elect a president who has a street view.”

Turner touted Sanders’s progressive record, dating back to his college activism protesting segregation in Chicago schools. Her mention of the University of Chicago drew loud cheers from the crowd, which included members of UChicago For Bernie.

There was no need for Turner to introduce Sanders: his arrival was immediately apparent from the roar of clapping and cheering that rose from the crowd when he walked in. Sanders focused on the importance of boosting historically low voter-turnout rates among youth and of convincing disenchanted Iowans to get involved.

“We’re going to be knocking on doors today, you’re going to be talking to some of those people and some of those peo-

Senator Sanders takes the mic in Iowa City beside his wife, Jane. avi waldman ple are going to say ‘Politicians are all bullshit, no one does anything.’ Believe me, you’ll be hearing that. Your job is to knock on doors today and say to people, it’s not good enough anymore to complain.”

First-year UChicago medical student Hayder Ali, who canvassed for Sanders with UChicago for Bernie, believes Sanders’s ability to motivate both voters and volunteers sets his campaign apart.

“Just seeing everyone’s energy and

enthusiasm and all these people are now ready to go knock doors, that’s what I think is unique about Bernie,” Ali said.

“Nobody is mobilizing people to that degree.”

Sanders concluded his speech in Iowa City by underlining the centrality of volunteers to his campaign.

“We talk about ‘us, not me,’ ” Sanders said. “That’s not only a good bumper sticker, which it is. It is a profound political and philosophical statement.”

THE CHICAGO MAROON — FEBRUARY 12, 2020

4

The Final Hours: UChicago for Pete’s Day-of Push for Caucus Support

By ALEX DALTON Grey City Editor It was a long weekend of driving and door knocking in and around Newton, Iowa, for the members of UChicago for Pete. Technological difficulties with a data app used by the Iowa Democratic Party meant that it was unclear for several days whether their candidate, former South Bend, Indiana, mayor Pete Buttigieg, would prevail in the state’s caucuses, which took place on February 3.

The former mayor claimed victory of the caucuses after final results gave him 26.2 percent of state delegates, narrowly edging out Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who won 26.1 percent. However, Sanders ended up with 2,568 more caucusgoers’ support than Buttigieg and the Senator also claimed victory.

While the Iowa caucuses do not always determine the Democratic nominee for the presidency (Bill Clinton notably lost the 1992 caucuses to Senator Tom Harkin and went on to win both the nomination and the general election), it is generally considered an important indicator of a candidate’s viability.

An early victory maybe especially

meaningful for Buttigieg, whose comparatively weak support among African American voters poses a likely obstacle for the candidate during the February 29 early primary in South Carolina.

In a January interview with the Maroon, Austan Goolsbee, an economics professor at the University’s Booth School of Business and a former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, said he believes the early-state strategy that propelled Barack Obama to victory in 2018 could do the same for Buttigieg. UChicago volunteers for the campaign were optimistic as well in the lead-up to the event.

“I’m feeling great,” first year Jacob Sher told The Maroon on Monday morning. “I think we’ve done everything we could. We had an awesome pep talk last night and I think everything’s going to go really well today.”

Sher, along with first-year Olafur Oddsson Cricco and second-year Laura Duffy, traveled 70 miles south of the Buttigieg campaign’s office in Newton to Ottumwa, a city of around 25,000 people. The trip was a last-minute bid to ensure that its residents come out to caucus in support of Buttigieg.

Lora Sundquist, a Pete staffer in Ottumwa, said that the campaign had 10 other

UChicago students supporting Pete Buttigieg pose for a photo. alex dalton

canvassers working in the town in a final attempt to turn out caucus-goers.

As a precinct captain for Buttigieg, Sundquist was responsible for addressing caucusgoers to make the case for the former South Bend mayor and persuade them to gather on his side of the caucus site.

“I’m just going to talk about how Pete has affected me personally, how I think he is the one to beat Trump because he’s a total opposite,” she told the Maroon. “He’s more of a moderate progressive.”

Responses to door-knocking during the day were relatively few and far between, likely because many residents were at work.

Those who did respond tended to be older.

One such Ottumwa resident was Toni Welch, who was a fan of Buttigieg, though she’s still deciding between him and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

“I am concerned about health care and I’m more concerned about having somebody in there that’s more for the middle class,” she told the Maroon.

“I don’t think Medicare for All is really workable,” she said, “but I think something has to be done to the Obama policy, because it’s not really working very well anymore.”

Welch said she was leaning towards the 38-year-old Buttigieg in part because of his

youth.

“I’d like somebody fresh and young,” she said, “Young’s important. Even though I’m old, young is important to me.”

Steven Peters was also home to answer UChicago for Pete’s knock, but said he planned to caucus for former Vice President Joe Biden on the basis of electability.

“He’s a little more down the middle than the rest of them,” he told the Maroon, adding, “I think he’s got a better shot.”

Peters acknowledged that his vote has more to do with the current president than any of Biden’s policy proposals.

“I just don’t want to see trouble for four more years. I just can’t take it,” he said. “So it may mean that I’m voting more against [Trump] than I am for Biden.”

Both Welch and Peters said that they would vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.

“I think it went pretty well,” Oddsson Cricco told the Maroon, “considering that it’s a Monday and most people are at work.”

Sher agreed, but Duffy had a somewhat different experience.

“A lot of the folks that I ran into who liked Pete couldn’t go out because of mobility issues,” she said.

THE CHICAGO MAROON — FEBRUARY 12, 2020

5

Organizer Hayder Ali on Bernie’s Working Class Message

By AVI WALDMAN Grey City Editor In the weekend preceding February 3’s Iowa caucuses, volunteers with UChicago for Berniecanvassed a house with a “Trump 2020” sign on the garage door, a woman with “Pete” signs in her window and on her lawn, and even the man working the register at an Iowa City sandwich shop.

Many volunteers approach residents with an issue they particularly want to talk about: one that connects to their own lives and that may be the reason they chose to support Sanders in the first place. For first year UChicago medical student Hayder Ali, it’s Sanders’ signature proposal of Medicare for All that dominates many conversations.

Ali grew up in a low-income community that struggled to access adequate healthcare, and says his childhood experiences shaped both his career path and his politics.

“I came to the U.S. when I was four and a half and I grew up in a really working class household. My mom worked a variety of minimum wage jobs essentially for most of my life,” Ali said.

“Growing up, both my sister and myself [were] on Medicaid and my mom [was] uninsured and eventually [got] county health insurance...As someone who grew up on Medicaid and [is] now going into medicine, Medicare for All is long past time.”

When Ali’s mother developed diabetes, he witnessed firsthand what it meant for her to be under or uninsured. His family’s ex-

perience with the American medical system pushed Ali into medical school and political activism.

“Healthcare is something that’s palpable and tangible and affects people’s lives,” Ali said. “[It affects] people like my mom and other people from the community, including undocumented people who have healthcare concerns and can’t really meet their needs...

Medicine is just something that allows me to combine advocacy work with something that’s challenging intellectually.”

Ali considered himself a Republican until 2012, when he was 18. It was the 2008 recession and activist backlash to perceived economic abuses, especially the Occupy Wall Street movement, that began to change his mind. The financial trials his family endured over the course of the recession years gradually altered the way Ali viewed politics.

“What I noticed throughout the 2000s was that things were getting harder and harder and then after 2008, I would say the period from 2009-2011 or 2012 was the hardest time,” Ali said. “We quite literally sometimes couldn’t put food on the table...I started to question the things that I assumed about the way the world worked.”

Troubled by what he saw as an economic system that didn’t serve the working class, Ali spent time “soul-searching” before he started college at the University of Houston, and entered his undergraduate years with what he described as “increased awareness of structural economic issues.” When Bernie Sanders launched his first run for president

in 2015, Ali felt that Sanders was speaking for working class people.

“I was drawn to Bernie because I felt like the Democratic Party as it was didn’t really represent me or speak for me,” Ali said.

“When Bernie ran in 2015 I actually had no idea who he was…. He caught on like wildfire and then I got sucked in because for the first time in my life I felt like somebody spoke to me. Someone represented me.”

When Sanders declared his candidacy for the 2020 presidential race, Ali immediately jumped onboard. Starting medical school this year reinforced his belief in the need for the kind of comprehensive economic reforms that Sanders proposes. Ali

described his experiences seeing patients in the University of Chicago clinic and studying for a class focused on disparities in health outcomes and explained that these factors drove home the ways in which the issues of inequality Sanders emphasizes manifest in health care.

“You get into the clinic and we’ll treat your illness but we’re not going to talk about why is it that you are in that shape. Do you not have access to healthy food?” Ali said.

“I think what medicine needs to do is focus more on talking about why people are having these bad outcomes, which inevitably involves talking about inequality.”

Medical student and Bernie Sanders supporter Hayder Ali. hayder ali

UChicago for Warren Knocks 100+ Doors

By LAURA GERSONY Senior News Reporter DES MOINES, Iowa—As 7 p.m. on Monday, February 3, the start time of the Iowa caucuses, approached, students volunteering with UChicago for Warren experienced a mix of excitement, anxiety, and suspense.

Third-year and co chair of the group Celia Hoffman likened the feeling to the anticipation she felt before crew regattas in high school.

“I kind of felt like I was waking up for a race. You get up early, you pull yourself together, you’ve been training, and it is what it is. You give it your all, and we’ll see what

happens,”Hoffman said.

But the caucuses had higher stakes than an ordinary race to Hoffman.

“This does feel like the championship, even though it’s the beginning of the season,” she said, referring to the fact that Iowa is only the first state in which parties choose a presidential nominee for the general election in November. The party’s choice of nominee will not be final until this summer.

The caucuses were the end of a long road for Hoffman, who worked on the Warren campaign over the past summer through the Institute of Politics’s Iowa Project along with third-year Sofia Cabrera.

“It’s a long time coming. It’s a big culmination. Sofia and I have put in a lot of hours, and it’s finally here,” Hoffman said. “I’m excited to see Elizabeth Warren win tonight.”

Asked how she was feeling after an early morning of caucus-day canvassing, Cabrera responded with one word: “Caffeinated.”

Second-year and co chair of UChicago for Warren Michael Ryter said that he was having trouble letting the chips fall where they may.

“It’s a tough feeling knowing that you’ve done all you could do for the last eight months, and we’re four hours away,” Ryter said. “There’s not much you can still do.”

Ryter felt his anxiety building as the

caucuses approached, but he remained focused on the group’s main goal: to best serve the Warren campaign.“You get a lot more nervous when there’s not much you can do to pass the time,”Ryter said. “Now, we’re just waiting, and getting to our precincts early, and doing the best job we can on site tonight.”

Ryter knew that he wasn’t the only person feeling the suspense, and that the eyes of the political world would be watching Iowa the night of February 3.

“It’s a really exciting and nervous moment: for us personally, and also for the country.”

THE CHICAGO MAROON — FEBRUARY 12, 2020

6

Organizer Aidan Coffey on His Work With UC for Warren

By LAURA GERSONY Senior News Reporter Sporting a neon green cowboy hat labeled with a “Warren” sticker, fourth-year Aidan Coffey was impossible to miss in the neighborhood of Waterbury in Des Moines.

It was well below freezing during Coffey’s third hour of canvassing for Elizabeth Warren, but he was stomping through snow banks and jogging from house to house, offering an enthusiastic greeting to each voter he encountered.

This wasn’t Coffey’s first venture into community outreach. A political science major, Coffey worked as a field organizer for the outreach arm of the Missouri Democratic Party during the 2018 midterm elections, and he used to volunteer in Chicago doing tax assistance to low-income residents of Bronzeville.

But Coffey views his trip to Iowa with a unique sense of purpose: to speak up during a decisive moment in American politics.

“If I want to be content for the next four years, I personally would like to make my voice heard,” he said.

Coffey had been knocking doors and volunteering for the Warren campaign

since the Friday before caucuses. He was motivated to make the trip to Iowa because he perceived how rare the opportunity was to be present for a crucial moment in American politics.

“This is it. We don’t get this chance all the time,” he said. “This is a four-year choice.”

Coffey has been supporting Warren since he began thoroughly researching the presidential candidates during the summer of 2019. He was drawn to the Senator’s intellectualism and detailed policy plans, which he believes reveal her preparedness for the highest office in the country.

“She’s just got very nuanced policy, as a former Harvard professor and eight-year Senator...that I, as a college student majoring in political science, am particularly keenly interested in. She’s very competent and capable of handling a massively challenging position,” Coffey said.

Coffey views Warren as uniquely prepared to accomplish progressive goals due to her ability to reach bipartisan solutions, praising her for not being “rigidly ideological.”

“I’d like to see a president make huge change to our country, and I think she’s extraordinarily prepared [to do so], more so

than other candidates...Senator Warren, in unique contrast to Senator Sanders, for example, has shown an ability to work across the aisle, to find solutions, and be able to work with other people who aren’t necessarily on her side,” Coffey said.

Coffey believes that corruption and campaign finance, two issues which the Massachusetts Senator has placed at the center of her campaign, have a tremendous effect on him and other Americans.

“The influence of lobbying in the United States often controls policies that affect every single American,” he said, “A multitude of issues that I care about...are bogged down by the influence of huge donors and big money in politics.”

Matters of foreign policy also hit a personal note for Coffey. President Donald Trump’s recent ‘maximum pressure’ campaign against Iran deeply troubles him, as a Persian-American.

“That sort of quick tension leading to potential escalation is personally devastating for me,” Coffey said. “The President of the United States openly publishing through his social media that he’d be interested in bombing Iranian cultural sites just hurts me deeply.”

He views the election as an opportunity to reshape American foreign policy in Iran.

“The President deciding to think so short-sightedly...is one of the things that I deeply want to change about the next administration,” Coffey said. “I know that Senator Warren, through her eight years in the United States Senate, would like to scale back the American military decisions that President Trump and other presidents in the past have ensnared the United States in.”

Coffey was impressed by Iowans’ openness to considering many candidates and the seriousness with which they take their role as the first state in the primaries.

“People are interested in having conversations up until the last day, the last weekend,” Coffey said.

He also said that canvassing has helped him better understand the situation on the ground in Iowa.

“It’s just so exciting to hear people’s minds and feel like you’re better informed about how this might go,” he said.

At the end of the day, Coffey is in Iowa out of a deep-seated aspiration simply “to be part of the American political system”: a feeling that is amplified by the singularity of this political moment.

VIEWPOINTS GSU to Faculty: Join Us in Seeking a More Democratic University

By GRADUATE STUDENTS UNITED STEERING COMMITTEE

The Maroon’s series on faculty governance—or more accurately, the administration’s ongoing trampling of faculty governance—painted a profoundly alarming portrait of single-minded union-busting and disregard for the voices of faculty and grad students alike. We thank the editors and reporters for the vast amount of work that clearly went into their reporting. Among the wealth of material The Maroon uncovered, a few points stick out in particular.

When then-Provost Diermeier announced his plan to overhaul doctoral programs in four divisions, we noted that many faculty were unaware of the changes. The letter from over 100 faculty members (which

we’ve heard that other faculty simply didn’t read in time to sign) confirmed that claims that the plan was created collaboratively were “simply not true.” The letter also confirmed that proposed caps would cut the humanities division by more than 25 percent, raising pressing questions for SSD [Social Sciences Division], SSA [School of Social Service Administration], and Divinity, particularly in disciplines and methodologies with longer times to completion. And we are still stunned at the report that divisional deans knew of the plan in the summer but “were sworn to secrecy.” What else is being withheld from faculty, or from us? What confidence can one have in an administration that hides such major plans until they are announced in the media as faits accomplis?

But we have not yet spoken of the debates

over GSU (Graduate Students United) and unionization. We were honestly heartened to read of so many faculty members, including some who have not made public stances in favor of unionization, or have even expressed concerns with it, speaking in favor of our basic ability to make decisions about how to organize ourselves as employees. But once again, such voices were ignored or dismissed by the central administration. The Provost seemed to have no compunction about dismissing faculty concerns and even misrepresenting GSU’s conduct in an apparent effort to discredit us.

Some comments from administrators, recorded in the minutes of the Faculty Senate, should raise immense concern regardless of one’s feelings on unionization. We refer in particular to Dr. Diermeier’s dismissal

of Title IX amongst issues raised in collective bargaining at other universities that, in his estimation, “have nothing to do with improvements to graduate student life.” Title IX prohibits sexual misconduct, including harassment and discrimination. These are very real issues at UChicago and elsewhere— which is why grad unions emphasize Title IX enforcement as part of “improvements to graduate student life.”

We voted to unionize, and we continue to call for recognition, because we seek a more democratic university where intellectual life flourishes. Faculty governance is a central part of that vision. We invite faculty members to join us in working toward these goals, despite the determined efforts of the administration to take the University of Chicago in the opposite direction.

the chicago maroon — February 12, 2020

7

The Committee On Graduate Education letter to the editor I have read with interest many of your articles about the new model for graduate funding, as well as the related pieces on faculty governance. I write in reply to offer a view of the history that led to the present moment in the hope of encouraging as many people as possible to engage in the constructive implementation and reform of the many changes taking place in graduate education.

Issues become salient to policy-making bodies in many ways. There can be no doubt that the movement for unionization, followed by the push for recognition of the union, helped to focus attention on structural and systemic problems in graduate education and the material conditions in which graduate students at the University live. It is also true that efforts to study and reform graduate education have been a regular and common feature of American university life over the last quarter-century, and several bodies at this university were actively engaged in the study and design of reforms in the lead up to this moment.

The Committee on Graduate Education was established by the provost in this context. The provost charged the committee to study the fullest possible range of issues affecting graduate education at the university level. The Committee was also granted substantial resources to survey students and faculty, to gather additional data, and to subject this material to analysis.

The faculty letter discussed in *The Maroon*’s coverage describes the recent change in the funding model for graduate programs as “a purely top-down, non-consultative imposition” on the part of the central administration. It is therefore important to recognize that faculty committees have been the standard mechanism employed throughout the history of the University to study complex issues of policy. Indeed, faculty committees, appointed by the leadership of the unit in question— chairs at the level of the department, deans within the divisions and the College, the provost at the level of the University—are one essential and universal expression of faculty governance. The other statutory expression of faculty governance at the University of Chicago is the elected Council of the Senate, which is charged with supervision of academic matters. This latter point

is of relevance as well to the reception of the Committee’s work.

One aspect only of the Committee on Graduate Education was, in fact, novel.

This was the inclusion, as full voting participants, of graduate students in equal numbers to the faculty representatives.

Their participation and insights were so salutary that the Committee recommended the inclusion of graduate students in other committees, whenever it is appropriate, in the future.

The work of the Committee was long, and its report touches on an extraordinary range of issues, from systems of pay to issues of diversity, funding, mentoring, grievance policies in conditions of asymmetric power, and so forth. The persuasiveness of its recommendations was enhanced, if not wholly grounded upon, its massive empirical work. This is why the University uses such committees: because it has a long and considered tradition of tackling policy issues via academic study. Even within the committee, whose membership was as heterogeneous as the population of the University at large, there was a meaningful consensus about our conclusions because we each believed that carefully gathered and rigorously analyzed data had led us to them.

Per usual in these cases, the report of the Committee on Graduate Education was brought before the elected Council of the Senate, and its own elected Committee. In fact, the report was brought before each of these bodies twice: once in draft, and once in its final form. The reception of the Committee’s recommendations in the provost’s office was shaped by the discussions in the Committee of the Council and the Council itself.

These recommendations included but were not limited to: (I) graduate student participation in governance; (II) improvements in and formalization of mentorship; (III) regular review of graduate education to make sure it is functioning well, and to make sure our processes of review are up to date; (IV) improved systems of graduate student funding and pay distribution; (V) abuses of power should be checked; a grievance process outside channels of supervision should be implemented; (VI) space should be given to students to lend dignity and privacy to their work.

In many areas, the Committee was

necessarily able only to isolate and identify problems and suggest the shape of appropriate solutions; it was not able to dictate what these solutions should be. For example, the Committee urged that it was essential to find space for graduate students, to provide for interdepartmental sociability and to lend appropriate dignity and privacy to their work as teachers and mentors of undergraduates. The Committee could make this recommendation in the abstract; it did not have the knowledge to identify the actual spaces available for this function.

The sweeping acceptance of the Committee on Graduate Education’s recommendations by the provost should be understood as a major enhancement in the wellbeing of graduate students, and as an achievement on the part of all those actors who worked to make graduate education a topic of public conversation in recent years.

I wish to emphasize this in no uncertain terms. The causality that brought us this extraordinary set of reforms is broad and complex. Procedurally, these forces were channeled into the work of a committee, composed of faculty and students, that

subjected the issues to academic study.

Politically, there is in my mind little doubt that the energy with which the recommendations of the Committee were taken up is due, in part, to those multiple parties—including the voices for unionization—that advocated for graduate reform.

This brings me to the present moment.

The current efforts to denigrate the process that delivered to us these reforms—by characterizing the changes as top-down, or identifying the Committee on Graduate Education as appointed rather than elected—and the push to make recognition of the union a moral requirement for any satisfactory resolution to the many calls for reform, sells short the many currents and labors that brought us here. More than that, this narrowing of the legitimate field of engagement risks forestalling our ability to discuss, evaluate, implement, and reform the changes that are taking place. That project is ongoing and deserves the attention of all those who value graduate education.

Clifford Ando Professor of Classics, and onetime member of the Committee on Graduate Education

3Bedroom/2 Bath 5316-18 S. Michigan Ave Ask about our Rent Incentives Close to University and U of Chicago Hospital Hardwood floors, stainless steel appl.

Recess lighting Granite countertops, Oak Cabinets Buzzed entry system One parking space per unit Central air & heat, washer, & dryer hookup $1500 - $1600 per month Prarie Management Corporation Office: Joy 312.332.6517 / 312.332.7164

the chicago maroon — February 12, 2020

8

IfNotNow Calls on University to Release the Endowment

By IfNotNow UChicago Students at the University of Chicago must know whether our University’s $8.5 billion endowment provides material support to Israel’s military.

In 2019 alone, the Israeli military demolished 140 homes, displaced 238 Palestinians, and detained nearly 200 Palestinian children. Since March 2018, the military has killed almost 200 Gazans protesting for recognition of their rights.

This has included journalists, medics, and children. The Israeli occupation, a system of violence and separation that has denied Palestinians freedom and dignity, is a moral disaster for those who support and administer it. Unfortunately, it is highly likely that, like other

universities, our university profits off of this unacceptable state of affairs through investments it holds in the endowment. Thus, President Robert Zimmer’s administration must release the endowment.

As members of IfNotNow, a movement of young American Jews working to end our community’s support for the occupation, we cannot stand by without knowing whether our university supports this oppression. We know that the occupation is a daily nightmare for those who live under it. We call on Zimmer to release the University’s $8.5 billion endowment to reveal any investments upholding the Israeli occupation. Students from other universities, such as McGill University, have found

Lee Harris, Editor-in-Chief Elaine Chen, Deputy Editor-in-Chief Deepti Sailappan, Managing Editor Peng-Peng Liu, Chief Production Officer Miles Burton, Editor-in-Chief–elect Emma Dyer, Editor-in-Chief–elect Caroline Kubzansky, Managing Editor–elect Jessica Xia, Chief Production Officer–elect The Maroon Editorial Board consists of the editors-in-chief and editors of The Maroon.

NEWS

Tony Brooks, editor Matthew Lee, editor Oren Oppenheim, editor Justin Smith, editor GREY CITY

Alex Dalton, editor Avi Waldman, editor VIEWPOINTS

Zahra Nasser, editor Meera Santhanam, editor Alexa Perlmutter, editor ARTS

Zoe Bean, editor Perri Wilson, editor SPORTS

Alison Gill, editor Thomas Gordon, editor Brinda Rao, editor COPY

Mohammed Bashier, copy chief James Hu, copy chief Cynthia Huang, copy chief Jason Lin, copy chief Olivia Shao, copy chief Kuba Sokolowski, copy chief

DESIGN

Suha Chang, head designer Jinna Lee, design associate Joseph Min design associate Christian Villanueva, design associate Connie Zheng, design associate BUSINESS

Michael Vetter, chief financial officer Gianni LaVecchia, chief financial officer-elect Brian Dong, director of strategy Kelsey Yang, director of marketing Victor Doddy, director of development Jennifer Phu, director of operations ONLINE

Firat Ciftci, software engineer Editor-in-Chief: Editor@ChicagoMaroon.com Newsroom Phone: (312) 918-8023 Business Phone: (408) 806-8381 For advertising inquiries, please contact Ads@ChicagoMaroon.com or (408) 806-8381.

Circulation: 2,500. © 2020 The Chicago Maroon Ida Noyes Hall / 1212 East 59th Street Chicago, IL 60637

that their institutions have financial stakes in the occupation. Their universities’ endowments held investments in settler businesses as well as military and technology firms that provide the necessary infrastructure for military rule.

Given the fact that so many other institutions have benefitted from of the occupation in this way, it is highly likely that UChicago does the same.

Support for the occupation comes in many forms, including material investments in surveillance and arms. Corporate and governmental entanglements with the occupation are multifold. The United Nations has found that over 200 companies do business with Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Microsoft supports an Israeli technology firm that uses facial recognition technology to police Palestinian civilians. Caterpillar provides equipment to demolish Palestinian homes. The United States’ latest military aid package to Israel requires that much of the nearly $4 billion in yearly aid be spent on American defense companies. Consequently, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and many other companies arm the Israel Defense Forces as it kills Palestinian civilians. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of aid enables Israel’s military occupation. Just over one in 10 dollars given in aid goes toward Israel’s missile defense systems like the Iron Dome, designed to protect Israeli civilians.

Critically, the annual report on the endowment does not disclose the specific corporations in which it invests. It is therefore impossible for students to know how and to what extent the endowment might profit from violence against Palestinians. We as students should know whether we are bankroll-

President Zimmer. courtesy of the university ing home demolitions, child detentions, settlement expansion, and other elements of the occupation.

For these reasons, we as Jewish students are calling on the University to reveal what our institution’s money is being used to uphold. We hope that other members of the campus community will join us and sign our petition demanding that the administration release the endowment.

Some may wonder why we are demanding that the administration release the endowment when they could simply perform an internal audit. IfNotNow believes that we must be able to evaluate the endowment independently. This is vital as otherwise the administration could choose not to reveal connections to companies potentially involved in the occupation.

The University has responded to past political demands by citing the Kalven Report, which says that the University will not choose sides

in a political debate unless it is required by “paramount social values,” without ever defining what these values are. But the Kalven Report does not shield the administration from releasing the endowment. Our claim is simple: University students deserve transparency from our administration.

We believe that the University’s financial entanglements with potential war crimes are, in fact, inconsistent with paramount social values. It is deeply important that the University manage the endowment’s substantial capital responsibly.

In order for Palestinians to live with freedom and dignity, we must be allowed to know whether and in what ways our institution materially supports Israeli occupation. Transparency is the first step to a better future shaped by freedom and dignity for all instead of profit and violence. We hope the administration will do what is right.

the chicago maroon — February 12, 2020

9

Commodification of Higher-Ed in Changes to University Governance

By ALEX KONG The Maroon’s recent series of articles constitute an invaluable contribution to campus life.

My experience has been that it’s taken for granted among my peers that the administration’s attitude towards those it serves is one of indifference at best and hostility at worst. Thanks to The Maroon’s excellent reporting, we’ll now be able to point to specific examples of actions taken by the administration that confirm our suspicions.

Now that we have incontrovertible evidence of the administration’s petty dictatorial aspirations, it’s worth asking ourselves what exactly is propelling the structural changes to the University that The Maroon has de-

lineated. It’s probably not power just for power’s sake (although I wouldn’t rule that out entirely).

The more probable explanation is that the administration has its own agenda, priorities, and vision for the University, and that their centralization of authority is just an instrument for the imposition of this broader vision. So the next step in the process of critical scrutiny that The Maroon has opened up is to ask: What exactly does that vision entail?

It seems to me that this administration’s priorities reflect a broader phenomenon which extends beyond UChicago: the commodification of higher education. This process would replace our quintessential commitment to the life of the mind with a model of the University

that values prestige, status, and wealth above all, and that understands its chief objective to be the reproduction of these quantities.

This type of university views its students as mere consumers who pay good money in exchange for a degree that will act as a stepping-stone to a lucrative career.

In the College, this mindset has manifested itself in an obsession with preprofessional preparation at the expense of academic rigor, as evidenced by the introduction of the business economics major and the proposed change to a semester system. Both of these moves bring us closer to the prevailing view of college as nothing more than a glorified credential mill for aspirant members of the ruling class (a line of thinking that’s intimately connected to a

conception of the university as a vehicle for class stratification and the propagation of economic privilege).

What’s more, when we consider the administration’s motivation through this lens, their recent major initiatives start to make sense. Why go on a national tour trumpeting our commitment to “free speech,” only to turn around and betray those principles on campus? Because this “commitment” is nothing more than the most cynical of branding exercises to differentiate our product in a crowded marketplace of universities.

This is also what accounts for the proliferation of donor-funded research institutes, not to mention a myriad of ostentatious new dorms and amenities. And of

course, all of this is in the service of bolstering that ultimate metric of prestige: a prized spot in the upper echelons of the U.S. News & World Report ranking, which serves as a validation of the administration’s competence and a justification for their fat paychecks.

This conceptual transformation in thinking about the nature of higher education provides the crucial background for understanding the administration’s consolidation of power. The structural changes in governance highlighted by The Maroon are a means to an end, with the end being the realization of the new, neoliberal model of the University. I can only hope that this effort fails.

Don’t Neglect Those Down-Ballot Offices

By SAM joyce It feels like the presidential election has sucked up all the political oxygen on campus. More than 100 students traveled to Iowa for the caucuses with UChicago for Bernie, with much smaller contingents traveling with the Warren and Buttigieg groups, as well as unaffiliated trips organized by UC Dems and the Institute of Politics. It wouldn’t be too much of an exaggeration to say that half of the student body was in Des Moines this weekend. Indeed, sometimes it feels like the presidential election is the only one on the ballot.

So, at the UC Dems Election Opportunities Fair two weeks ago, it was heartening to see that the floor wasn’t dominated just by representatives of the presidential campaigns. Candidates ranging from State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, up for reelection in March, to Marie Newman, currently mounting a primary

challenge to Representative Dan Lipinski, sent representatives to make their case to students. Both State Senator Robert Peters and his challenger, Ken Thomas, showed up in person, eager to persuade students to vote and volunteer for their campaigns.

These down-ballot offices are less sexy than the presidency. No Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) Commissioner will ever declare war or sign an international treaty. Most of these local officeholders are lucky if they’ll ever be on CNN. Despite the lack of glamour, however, the results of these elections will shape life in Cook County for the next several years. Even though local races aren’t quite as glamorous as the presidential one, it is just as important to pay attention to them and familiarize yourself with the candidates.

The highest-profile local election is the race for the Cook County State’s Attorney, with well-funded challenger Bill Con-

way attempting to oust incumbent Kim Foxx. Foxx was first elected in 2016 in the wake of the murder of Laquan McDonald, pledging to reform the prosecutor’s office and address the problem of mass incarceration.

In office, she has largely lived up to that promise: Sentences of incarceration are down 19 percent, violent crime reports are down 8 percent, and 25 percent more people have been referred to rehabilitation programs.

Conway, for his part, has criticized Foxx’s handling of the Jussie Smollett case and her connections to indicted Alderman Ed Burke. He’s already released several ads attacking Foxx on those grounds, and, with several million in his campaign account thanks to his billionaire father, he has the money to blanket the airwaves. Whoever wins the State’s Attorney’s race will decide the direction of the country’s second-largest prosecutor’s office for the next four years. They will

determine whether Cook County continues to work toward criminal justice reform or whether it returns to a series of “tough-oncrime” policies.

Even further down the ticket is the election for Cook County Clerk of the Circuit Court. Whoever wins this election will earn the dubious honor of helming a notoriously dysfunctional agency of Cook County government, one where—13 years after the release of the iPhone—the office still runs on carbon paper. The frontrunner is Board of Review Commissioner Michael Cabonargi, who’s been endorsed by the Cook County Democratic Party but first has to get past three challengers: State Senator Iris Martinez, former County Commissioner Richard Boykin, and self-funded attorney Jacob Meister. Whoever wins will face the monumental task of modernizing and reforming an obscure office, but one that is essential to the functioning of the County’s legal system.

The final local office on the ballot is the election for three commissioners of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District.

The MWRD is one of the largest agencies in the county, with more than 2,000 employees and a billion-dollar annual budget. And their job is the least glamorous of all: controlling, disinfecting, and disposing of the city’s sewage.

With 10 candidates on the ballot, there’s a wide range of perspectives on how best to accomplish the MWRD’s critical mission of keeping Lake Michigan clean.

The presidential election can sometimes feel like the only one on the ballot, but when Illinois votes in March, voters will also decide the future of several important local offices. Whether it’s volunteering for a campaign, making a donation, or simply casting an informed ballot, these elections deserve your attention.

the chicago maroon — February 12, 2020

10

Green City Chicago’s First weeks of legal Marijuana raise questions

courtesy of pixabay

By ETHAN BLINDER Grey City Reporter

On the night of December 31, 2019, the last night of the year, a long line had already formed outside the entrance of Sunnyside Dispensary in Chicago. Many had camped out in front for up to seven hours to ensure that they were able to enjoy the first legal recreational marijuana in the city. Cresco Labs, a Chicago-based cannabis company, spent weeks training 530 temporary staff to handle the massive swell of customers on New Year’s Day. By the end of the first day of sales, customers had spent almost $3.2 million on cannabis. After legalization on Wednesday, only one dispensary was able to continue selling recreational cannabis by Sunday after the surge in consumption led to a shortage.

The process of legalization has been

gradual. In August of 2013, Governor Patrick Quinn signed into law the state’s medical marijuana program. In July of 2016, Governor Bruce Rauner signed into law the decriminalization of possessing small amounts of marijuana, reducing the punishment to a fine of $100–200. On June 25, 2019, Governor J. B. Pritzker signed into law the Illinois Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act, which set to legalize recreational marijuana use for 2020.

Accompanying Pritzker’s legalization bill were others passed at the local level intended to undo many of the harms caused by the war on drugs—primarily the mass incarceration of low-level offenders and the disruption of low-income communities—and channel the revenues of the newly legalized industry into underserved communities.

Alongside the fight for legalization, pro-

gressive state legislators in Chicago have fought to rebuild many of the communities and families who were devastated by the drug war. State Senators Heather Steans and Toi Hutchinson alongside Representatives Jehan Gordon-Booth and Kelly Cassidy have moved to expunge up to 770,000 low-level marijuana conviction records and dedicate $12 million to the growth of minority-owned cannabis businesses.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot has proposed legislation to create seven “cannabis zones” across the north, south, and west sides of Chicago. The number is planned to increase to 14 in May. These zones are intended to evenly spread the profits of the cannabis industry into underserved areas.

This legislation arose out of fears that the cannabis industry would simply continue to favor the moneyed interests in the city, while leaving the most damaged areas behind. “They want us to participate in the consumption but don’t want us to participate in the growing and the distribution of it,” noted Alderman Jason Ervin of the 28th Ward in an interview. These fears are well justified, according to members of the Chicago Aldermanic Black Caucus.

One concern that legalization advocates have is that local aldermen will use the power of their office to block sales in their ward. Lightfoot has also set out to reform the institution of aldermanic prerogative, by which local aldermen could approve or deny zoning and permit decisions in their ward at will. Historically, this program has led to rampant segregation, with aldermen denying permits to businesses owned by people of color, as well as staggering political corruption, with 30 aldermen convicted of such corruption since 1972. On May 20, 2019, Lightfoot implemented this change by executive order, and gave local department heads 60 days to comply and implement

the necessary changes.

In the context of marijuana legalization, Lightfoot is concerned that aldermen would simply deny any licensing for dispensaries in their ward, effectively preventing legalization in the city. While she told the Chicago Tribune that a dispensary will be an affront to the neighborly image of an area, she has stood her ground on stripping aldermen of their veto power.

However, this battle has been dearly fought, as many look to their local alderman as a source of protection from an expansive city government. Alderman Nick Sposato of the 38th Ward has been a vocal opponent of the measure. “I should have prerogative in what goes on in my ward,” he directed toward Lightfoot in an interview. “Who knows my ward better than me?”

Many aldermen are also concerned that the new marijuana industry will do little to serve communities of color, while white dispensary owners make tremendous profits. While white Americans comprise 81 percent of marijuana business owners, African Americans and Latinos make up only 10 percent of the total. When a dispensary license lottery was held in Chicago last November, no Black contestants were present.

In states where recreational marijuana is legal, corporations have consolidated into huge entities, driving out any small competitors who put their dominance of the rapidly expanding $17 billion industry at risk. Chicago is already the center of much of the trading in the industry, with two large publicly traded cannabis growers, Green Thumb Industries and Cresco Labs, based in Chicago.

Mergers occur at the scale of hundreds of millions of dollars, with the behemoths swallowing up even the moderately large continued on pg. 11

the chicago maroon — February 12, 2020

11

“Cannabis cost us...and we can’t get a piece of it” continued from pg. 10

companies. Meanwhile, small-scale growers would likely be pushed out of the industry, unable to compete at the prices offered by larger companies. “There will be three or four ultimate surviving big companies,” Grassroots Cannabis CEO Mitch Khan predicted in an interview with Crain’s Chicago Business. “There are some medium-size players left. If you’re in two or three states today, it’s hard to think you can get big enough fast enough to stay in the game.”

Moreover, other existing corporate giants, notably tobacco and alcohol companies, are already using their resources to expand into the marijuana market.

Tobacco giant Altria invested $1.8 billion to buy almost half of Cronos, a Canadian cannabis company, and the Constellation Brands beer company invested $4 billion in Canopy Growth, also in Canada.

“It is rational and strategically sound for large alcohol and tobacco companies to invest in the marijuana business,” said Stephen Morrissette, an associate professor at the Booth School of Business. Corporate expansion into separate industries is generally less successful when the industries are in completely disparate fields. But because the alcohol and tobacco industries have a product that targets a similar desire as marijuana and the corporations have the legal infrastructure already in place to handle government regulations, expansion into the marijuana industry could be incredibly profitable.

Many business insiders, such as Plyfe founder Jeff Arbour, are also speculating that the marijuana industry will create a shared space for larger corporate entities as well as smaller, independent growers. This model has been seen in the beer industry, with corporate giants like Budweiser and Coors holding down the majority of the market share, but many microbreweries serving their local area emerging as well. Though it is unclear at the time what the ratio of mass market growers to independent growers will be, many, including Morrissette, have faith that the market will naturally find the appropriate balance between the two.

Currently, the only stopgap to unrestrained international competition is the fact that marijuana is still illegal under U.S. federal law as a Schedule I narcot-

ic. Canada has no such restrictions, with cannabis fully legalized in October of 2018, and with little regulation, giants such as Aurora Cannabis have taken over huge portions of the market.

Colorado has implemented a number of bills to support smaller growers and slow consolidation, including offering cheaper licenses for small businesses, especially those in underserved communities. The Los Angeles Department of Cannabis Regulation has implemented a Social Equity Program, which includes expedited licensing applications and renewals for small business owners, and similar programs have been implemented in Massachusetts and Hawaii.

However, despite these efforts, such equity programs have remained largely unsuccessful in other cities that have implemented them, like Los Angeles. Currently, the cannabis industry is simply flooded with potential growers and business owners, and as a result there is an excess of applicants for such programs. Social equity programs also move at a much slower rate, with the effects of the program often not showing for years, and many applicants feel that the program has been underfunded, according to the LA Weekly.

“These regulations exist entirely for political reasons,” Morrissette said. “It has no economic purpose.” Morrissette went on to explain that he felt that these regulations simply existed to make legalization of marijuana more palatable, replacing the image of the towering corporation with a friendlier neighborly business owner, rather than producing substantial changes to Chicago’s economic development.

These concerns of the superficial nature of the legislation are shared by many, including Black Caucus chairman Ervin. “The right way is to come up with a strategic plan where we can change the trajectory of Black and Brown people in this city, and particularly, when it comes to participation in the market,” he said in an interview with CBS. Though he voted in support of Lightfoot’s ordinance for marijuana sale zoning, he made clear that his support was conditional on the understanding that “loopholes” in the state law be closed to promote African-American entrepreneurship. The most egregious concern, according to Ervin, is that “there are no African

Americans in this mix.” He also criticized the legislation for rewarding businesses for hiring people already living in areas which have been impacted by the war on drugs, while not having any Black owners.

These criticisms exist alongside a prolonged conflict between Lightfoot and the Black Caucus on the issue of legalization.

The Caucus originally delayed a vote for the zoning laws out of equity concerns. Ervin also proposed an ordinance that would prevent legal marijuana sales until July 1, 2020, to give time to produce legislation to promote equity in the marijuana business, specifically Black ownership of businesses. This threat was backed up with support from all 19 members of the Chicago Black Aldermanic Caucus.

Other members of the Black Caucus have expressed a desire to forego legalization entirely until the proper foundation for equity has been laid. In a speech before the vote on the measure to delay legalization until July, Alderman Anthony Beale of the Ninth Ward stated, “Cannabis has cost us hundreds of thousands of African Americans in this city, and we can’t get a piece of it. We need a piece of this, and if we can’t get it, no one should get it.”

The expected income in taxes, a much touted talking point for marijuana activists, is also not expected to exceed $10 million, in a city with an $838 million deficit.

Though dispensaries in the downtown area would bring in additional revenue, Lightfoot voiced her concern that this will ruin the “family friendly” nature of the area, despite the fact that there are already liquor shops present in the area.

Under the ordinance, residents can also petition to have the dispensaries’ permit delayed.

After much compromise, the bill passed 40–10, including with Ervin’s support. After the vote, Lightfoot said she would attempt to address the concerns of the Black Caucus, but that the demands for “social equity and minority ownership” needed to be addressed at the state, not the local level.

Despite the initial popularity of the dispensaries, business has experienced a dramatic drop-off as people consider the trade-offs that come from buying from regulated vendors. A University of Chicago student who did not want to be identified due to her cannabis use said that ex-

citement around the legalization has not matched practical reality. “People were really excited when they first heard about it,” she said, “but since then, people have kind of realized that it’s just not worth it.” The lines remain long—well over two hours for some dispensaries—and supply problems still afflict the more popular dispensaries.

Alongside long wait times and supply problems, the cannabis and the prices these dispensaries are delivering have also been called into question. The average price of cannabis in Chicago remains over $21 per gram, greater than the national average. This is largely due to a tax of 15–25 percent, graded based on the potency of the cannabis, as well as other miscellaneous local taxes.

On top of these taxes is an overall limit on the amount of cannabis that can be held at any one time. Given that marijuana is still federally illegal, a limit on possession has been placed such that it is illegal to have more than 30 grams of cannabis at any one time. As a result of the delays from the dispensaries and sky-high tax rates, many cannabis users have reverted to using their old unregulated methods of purchasing cannabis. “You’re getting less and paying more,” noted the aforementioned student.

For many, the legalization of marijuana promises to be a societal boon on many levels. Tax revenues could increase, the prison population could be relieved, and a brand new, promising industry could enter the community. At the same time, many social equity activists are advocating for the state government to step in to address historical disparities, especially along racial lines. While many are hopeful that the new industry could provide new opportunities for people of color, others fear that it will simply become a new space for the racial wealth gap to widen. Although Chicago is six weeks into its experiment with legal marijuana, it remains uncertain whether these possibilities will come to fruition.

the chicago maroon — February 12, 2020

12

SPORTS

Women’s Basketball Tied for First in UAAs

By Ali Sheehy Sports Reporter

The University of Chicago women’s basketball team sits atop the regular-season standings in the UAA, tied for No. 1 with New York University and Emory University, all three with 6–3 records.

With big conference wins earlier this season versus Carnegie Mellon, Brandeis, and Washington University, the Maroons headed into the past two weekends looking to secure wins against rivals Emory and Rochester. According to fourthyear guard Miranda Burt, who recently joined classmates Taylor Lake and Mia Farrell in the 1,000-point club, playing the same two teams two weekends in a row brings its challenges. “It’s definitely a little weird playing the same two teams in a row. We know teams will try and stop

what worked last weekend, so we really focus on small adjustments we can make to continue to be successful.”

Two weekends ago, the Maroons were triumphant against their opponents at home with an 80–71 win vs. Emory on Friday, and a 73–58 win vs. Rochester on Sunday. Unfortunately, this past weekend did not go as planned, as UChicago was defeated in two tough road games against Emory and then Rochester.

On Friday, in their 51–39 loss to Emory, defense proved to be the biggest factor of the game. UChicago was kept at a 30.4 field goal percentage with 16 turnovers while the Eagles posted 35.7 shooting percentage. First-year Grace Hynes accounted for 15 of the Maroons’ 39 points, along with nine rebounds and two assists.

Second-year Klaire Steffens was second on the team with eight points and six re-

bounds.

After their loss to the Eagles, the UChicago women’s team traveled to Rochester, NY for another UAA matchup on Sunday. Once again, the Maroons’ biggest obstacle was their rival’s defense.

At the end of the first half, the Maroons trailed their opponents by 16 points.

With a second-half surge provided by Lake’s career-high 32 points, along with 13 points posted by both Farrell and Burt, UChicago was able to tie the game up with two minutes left. However, the comeback could not be completed as the Maroons eventually fell to the Yellowjackets by a score of 81–75.

Although this past weekend wasn’t exactly what the Maroons had hoped for, the team is still optimistic as the end of the season approaches. Burt commented, “This weekend taught us to go back

to just playing basketball. At this point in UAA play, everyone knows everyone so well. We have a great team, and we just need to get back to the basics.” She continued, “I think that the games that we have lost have helped us get better as a team.”

Moving forward, the Maroons hope to get back to their winning ways and finish the regular season off strong. Once again, according to Burt, “We want to win the league and be successful in the last UAA games. After that, we hope to get into the NCAA tournament and make a deep run.”

The UChicago women’s basketball team competes again next weekend at home against Carnegie Mellon on February 14 and Case Western Reserve on February 16.

Farrel’s Fearlessness Leads to On-Court Success

By Thomas Gordon Sports Editor

According to one of her teammates, she is “one of the most competitive people I have ever met.” She “hates to lose more than anything.” These are just a few of the statements used to describe Mia Farrell, the standout point guard on the women’s basketball team. Farrell is a member of the illustrious Class of 2020, which has three 1,000-point scorers.

The other two members of this exclusive club, Taylor Lake and Miranda Burt, are effusive in praise for their teammate.

A trait consistently mentioned when discussing Farrell is “her fierce drive and passion,” in the words of fellow fourth-year Lake. This desire to be the best and consistently improve has been evident in Farrell’s four seasons at UChicago. She developed from being an important bench contributor in her first year to a full-fledged starter the past three. Her consistency is truly something at which to marvel as she has been healthy to start her last 72 games,

creating her own iron woman streak.

Her ability to remain efficient, even with an increase in the volume of shots and a higher-profile role on the team, exemplifies her effect on the team and her direct impact on its growth.

Her hatred to lose is evident in her ability to hit the important shots at clutch times. Fellow fourth-year Burt emphasizes that Farrell “has a knack for hitting the big shot when we need it,” whether at the end of the game or a run-stopping basket. This clutch gene has been on full display since she stepped off the bench and scored a game-winning shot against NYU. Fearlessness is another descriptor given by teammates to Farrell. She has no fear driving in and drawing contact against bigger players in the paint. In fact, she relishes it: Farrell holds the school record for the most free throws attempted in one game, with 18 against Wash U in 2018. Her ability to put the other team’s frontcourt in foul trouble as well as converting at the foul line is special. It’s not just the quantity of free

throws that Farrell earns, but her ability to turn them into points that is impressive. Currently Farrell is fifth in all-time career free throw percentage at UChicago with an impressive 80.5 percent. This fearlessness in the paint is one of the reasons that Lake describes her as “one of those players every team wishes they had on their side because it’s terrifying to play against her.”

When Farrell is consistently getting into the lane and to the foul lines, it opens up all aspects of the game for her and her teammates. Defenders are forced to pack the lane and clasp on her drives, giving Farrell more space on the perimeter and opening up passing lanes to teammates. This was seen in this season’s game against NYU as Farrell tied her career best in points with 31. In that game, she also led the team in rebounds, showing her desire to battle inside with the posts.

The final trait that distinguishes Farrell is her ability as a teammate. According to Burt, Farrell has “been a great friend and teammate to me throughout

these years, always supporting me and helping me become better myself.” Burt adds, “I can’t wait to see the accolades she collects as she finishes out her career.” Lake reiterates Farrell’s skill as a teammate: “No one hypes you up more in a game than Mia, and [she] will be the first to have your back in anything on or off the court. Mia is an incredible competitor, leader and lifelong friend.

My time here would not have been the same without Mia Farrell— [I am] glad we agreed on our recruiting visit that UChicago is where we were meant to be.”

For any leader, the ability to pick up and elevate teammates is a vitally important characteristic, and one that Farrell has embodied. Along with her teammates, fans of the Maroons share the same excitement to see how Farrell writes the ending to her storied career and how far this group of Maroons can go.

the chicago maroon — february 12, 2020

slave to the grind by julia byrne and julia sweeney Across 1. Payment to cross 5. Lover: Suffix 10. Pawn’s starting location 14. Opera solo 15. ___ For Life 16. Moby Dick’s archnemesis 17. You should look first 18. Clean the chalkboard 19. Dawn’s?

20. Preemptive warning before you’ve had your equal parts espresso and milk?

23. Osakan ogre 24. Rental ___ 25. Rejection before you’ve had your espressoand foamed milk?

31. Pretensions 32. Sign outside an apartment building, maybe 33. Bathroom cleaner 36. Cycles can follow it 37. Milkshake holder (it’s Wednesday!)

38. Mil. entmt. gp.

39. Align 41. Stellar sights 43. Fancy term for a currency exchange fee 44. Angry rejoinder before you ve had your equal parts coffee and steamed milk?

47. “Zoboomafoo”

animal star 48. “I pity the fool” speaker 49. Exasperated proclamation before you’ve had your shot of pressurized coffee?

56. Lawsuit 57. Coldly 58. Drag one’s feet?

59. Assert, as in a lawsuit 60. Neatly sidestep 61. Schedule 62. It’s not pretty 63. Lieu 64. What you should study for

13

vanity plate in Arrested Development ) 22. Pull (behind) 25. Pets supposedly afraid of cucumbers 26. Breathy 27. Disney cast 28. Hot drink 29. Feb. 14 text 30. Home to the Sherpa

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

Kupcinet 47. Jilt 50. Edinburgh native 51. ___ pot, in poker 52. One of Chekhov’s “Three Sisters” 53. Capacity 54. Some light beers 55. Camping necessity 56. Body ___

9

10

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

26

28

31

29

13

34

35

54

55

30

32

33 37

36

38

41

40 44

12

24

27

39

11

22

23 25

Down 1. The softest mineral 2. Near-palindromic cookie 3. Prevaricator 4. Anti-mouse devices?

5. Be a statistician 6. Character who often gets the most screen time 7. Hebrew boy’s name 8. Endure 9. Sight range 10. Where Columbus landed in the New World 11. “And... voilà!”

12. Toads’ features 13. Independence Day (___) 21. ___ START ( joke

2

people 34. “Not a chance” 35. “Presto chango!”

40. RVs 41. Greek mermaids 42. Fluffy, snow-loving dog breed 43. Bid 45. Pet owner’s nuisance 46. Chicago sportscaster

42

45

43 46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

THE CHICAGO MAROON — FEBRUARY 12, 2020

14

ARTS Paul Lewis and Sir Andrew Davis Breathe Life into a Polarized Beethoven Program at the CSO

By JULIAN STUART-BURNS Arts Reporter

You don’t have to be a fan of classical music to know that everything’s coming up Beethoven. December 2020 marks the 250th birthday of the behemoth composer, and performance halls across the world are scrambling to pack even more of his work into programs already overstuffed with it.

Luckily for students, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (CSO) provides $15 tickets for select performances, and last Tuesday,

I took this opportunity to watch their Beethoven concert with English pianist Paul Lewis and conductor Sir Andrew Davis.

The program for the concert included two short pieces written for smaller orchestral ensembles by English composer Sir Michael Tippett, and the first and fourth Beethoven concertos. The first half of the concert was surprisingly dull. Tippett’s Little Music for String Orchestra, the first piece in the program, is a drab, neoclassical affair supposedly inspired by Beethoven, but lacking the wit and finesse that charac-

Spring 2020 Courses

in the Big Problems Capstone Curriculum for juniors and seniors DRINKING ALCOHOL: SOCIAL PROBLEM OR NORMAL CULTURAL PRACTICE?

UNDERSTANDING PRACTICAL WISDOM

Howard Nusbaum (Psychology), Anne Henly (Psychology) BPRO 24050, PSYC 24060, RLST 24055

SCIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY

Dorian Abbot (Geophysical Sciences), Daniel Fabrycky (Astronomy), Lea Schweitz (Religious Studies) BPRO 27800, RLST 27801

THINKING PSYCHOANALYTICALLY: FROM THE SCIENCES TO THE ARTS Anne Beal (Social Sciences) and colleagues BPRO 28400, ANTH 24316

For more information, please see:

http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/thecollege/bigproblems

The Big Problems curriculum addresses matters of global or universal concern that intersect with several disciplines and affect a variety of interest groups.

p r o b l e m s

Michael Dietler (Anthropology), William Green (Neurobiology) BPRO 22800, ANTH 25310, BIOS 02280, HLTH 25310

b i g

Announcing

terizes Beethoven’s pieces. As I listened, I could not stop thinking about a time when my dad complained that the orchestral anthem, which played between commercial breaks of Premier League matches, was “a bunch of British bollocks”—he’s Dutch.

That just about sums up my problem with this piece: It feels way too British to fully imitate Beethoven’s style.

The Tippett piece was followed by Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No. 1, a piece which I had never really listened to before. Turns out, I wasn’t really missing much. While Lewis’s playing was remarkable throughout—the delicacy with which he handled this over-virtuosic piece was nothing short of phenomenal—the piece itself, composed during a time when Beethoven was renowned for his pianistic abilities and viewed the concerto form as his virtuosity showcase, lacks any real depth or movement. It is fascinating that this concerto is his first officially numbered orchestral work, as it shows Beethoven still very much struggling with the scope of the form. In this piece, he uses the styles of Mozart and Haydn as a crutch, desperately trying to use virtuosity as a voice to detrimental results. Fortunately, Lewis’s tone resembled that of Brendel, my favorite Beethoven interpreter.

Davis’s conducting was equally wonderful, and the dynamic contrast in the orchestra was consistently surprising. The cellos especially stood out with their rich, brilliant tone. Although this was not the best Beethoven piece one could’ve asked for, the performance itself made up for it.

The second half of the concert was what I believe everyone was there for, and it certainly did not disappoint. After the intermission, a small fragment of the orchestra performed Tippett’s Praeludium for Brass, Bells, and Percussion, a more concise and decidedly more mature piece than his Little Music for String Orchestra. As Sir Andrew Davis explained to the audience, the praeludium was originally commissioned by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) as an anthem for their 50th anniversary program. This original purpose, however, is

hardly evident. It is dark, deeply thoughtful, and minimalist in its instrumentation. The harmony is also much more forward-thinking, a nice counterpoint to the Little Music for String Orchestra and to those bollocks-y British anthems that we’re all done with.

After the praeludium came the main event: Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No. 4.

Once upon a time, this was one of my favorite classical pieces ever written, but I have to admit that it has somewhat lost its effect on me. The moments that used to really hit me are still just as beautiful—just listen to how Beethoven employs winds in the first movement—but the piece as a whole was a little dragged out. This is not at all, however, the fault of the performers. Lewis played splendidly with real depth and nuance in both dynamic and tone. The beginning of the recapitulation in the first movement is one of the highlights of this piece, and Lewis performed it with a delicacy and lightness of touch that I’ve never heard played live before. The second movement was also exceptional, and I found myself in awe of the contrast between Lewis and the strings in the orchestra. The strings played with appropriately refined force, neither too excessive nor too meager. Again, the cello section was phenomenally rich. The third movement, a light and festive affair, had all the character it needed. It perfectly showcased Lewis’s virtuosity, and the evenness and careful attention he pays to each note was exceptionally evident.

While the ludicrous attention that’s being paid to Beethoven—a composer whose repertoire already fills yearly calendars to the point of bursting—might turn some away, it cannot be denied that the CSO makes the most of every piece that they play. While not every piece is an absolute hit, some, like Piano Concerto No. 4, will never cease to be monumental in the classical repertoire. This concert whetted my appetite for a season whose remaining concerts include other tried and true classics— Brahms’s Symphony No. 4 and Mahler’s No. 6 are sure to be absolutely stunning performances—and I know I will be back soon.

THE CHICAGO MAROON — FEBRUARY 12, 2020

15

Breaking News: King Princess is Annoying, but Her Concert was Fun Anyway

By JULIA HOLZMAN

The best of music & theater for only $20 Sign up for $20 student ticket alerts EMAIL TEXT

Sign up at lyricopera.org/next Text NEXTTIX to 51555

Madama Butterfly Feb 6 - Mar 8 lyricopera.org 312.827.5600

Arts Reporter

This time last year, I walked out of the Metro Theater, King Princess’s second stop on her Pussy Is God tour, buzzing with the collective energy of every Chicagoland lesbian under 30, yet irritated by King Princess’s holier-than-thou, smoke-deprived affect. Not only did she ask an adoring audience for their Juuls and joints throughout her set, but she also had the audacity to perform only three of the five songs from her sole EP out at the time, Make My Bed. She performed a lot of her newer tracks—most of which have since made it on to Cheap Queen, her debut album from October—but left her already devout fanbase unable to scream along to some of the precious few songs they knew by heart.

Only 20 years old at that time, King Princess (whose real name is Mikaela Straus) had Chicago’s lesbians wrapped around her finger.

This time this year, I left King Princess’s concert with a brand new irritant.

Cringing at the way she tended to speak in between songs, I mentioned to a friend dancing next to me that King Princess seemed completely influenced by gay men’s culture—but to be fair, she’d always been like that. My friend Liva nodded, pointing out that it was “not just gay men, but specifically gay Black men…which is a little yikes.”

Between her random musings, self-promotions, and song introductions, the born-and-bred rich, white New Yorker fluctuated between vocal fry Valley Girl and drag-appropriative blaccent. It wasn’t a great look, though most of the audience didn’t seem to mind.

Now 21, King Princess performed for a sold-out Riviera Theatre last Wednesday as part of her Cheap Queen tour. She no longer needs to siphon Juuls off her audience; hitting some of her own between songs, King Princess occasionally tossed CONTINUED ON PG. 16

NEXT is supported by Lead Sponsor The Grainger Foundation and cosponsors Mr. and Mrs. Paul F. Anderson, Dr. and Mrs. Arthur J. Atkinson, Jr., The Brinson Foundation, The Ferguson-Yntema Family Charitable Trust, and Elaine S. Frank Fund.

Photo: Lynn Lane/Houston Grand Opera

King Princess performs on stage at the Riviera Theatre on February 5. julia holzman

THE CHICAGO MAROON — FEBRUARY 12, 2020

16

“Its [‘Do You Wanna See Me Crying?’] pitiful title doesn’t pay due justice to its self-reflective lyrics.”

CONTINUED FROM PG. 15

them out into a clamoring sea of hands when she decided she was done. Her new attitude toward Juul-sharing perhaps reflects a much-increased budget.

Whereas last year’s only decor was a cheap-looking “KING PRINCESS” sign in typical “HAPPY BIRTHDAY” fashion (which fell down halfway through the show), this year’s stage was decked out with a larger-than-life empty mirror held up by two massive, bloodied hands with red-polished nails. King Princess stepped through the mirror to a roaring crowd when she took the stage Wednesday night, and sauntered over to an electric-blue piano to open the evening with “Isabel’s Moment,” a slower song off her new record.

For all the mixed feelings I have toward King Princess, standing in the press-only area that night, I was in heaven. As the other (professional) photographers leapt from side to side, joylessly capturing the up-and-coming indie pop icon from maximum angles, I couldn’t help but sing along, dancing and taking videos with my phone while I tried to teach myself concert photography on the spot.

I’ll be honest, I took my hair down and shook it out for volume when I learned I’d be standing feet away from King Princess, because even though hours earlier I’d told someone verbatim, “I wouldn’t date King Princess,” I didn’t want to write it off completely when given the chance.

A few songs in, once I’d returned to the masses and put away my camera, King Princess announced, “This is a tour for my album Cheap Queen. I think it’s a very good album. Very good…high scores. 10 points!” and I begrudgingly agree. Whereas Make My Bed brought us upbeat tempo, love songs, and New York City, Cheap Queen features a wider range of emotions and experiments more with instrumentals and electronic sounds. Cheap Queen seamlessly blends low-key songs that run deep (“Prophet,” “Ain’t Together”) with more popular crowd-pleasing bangers like “Hit the Back.” King Princess ended her set with the latter, and for the first time all night, the lights were all different colors and bouncing every which way. King Princess’s friend Henry (who’d lip-synced

in drag earlier to warm up the crowd in between openers and the main act) joined her on stage again to dance, and the whole audience partied.

But nothing on Cheap Queen goes quite as hard as Make My Bed’s “Talia,” and I think King Princess knows that. She led up to the song with an uncharacteristically long conversation with the audience, first joking with us as she sipped from her red solo cup, asking, “Who’s completely wasted after four drinks? Who has four adult beverages and is sloshed, on the ground?

That’s me.” The audience laughed, and then King Princess hit us with another question: “Who here has ever had an ex-girlfriend?” She asked the question provocatively a few more times, encouraging us to own it, before breaking out into the iconic first lines of “Talia,” which starts slow and gets progressively more passionate.

For the amount of fandom palpable in the room, it was a weirdly subdued crowd for dancing, but every voice in the room

was on for the entirety of “Talia.” At lines like, “If I drink enough, I can see you dancing,” King Princess sipped more from her solo cup, happy to let the pre-recorded track do the moment’s singing for her.

An unexpected favorite song of the night, for me, was “Do You Wanna See Me Crying?,” a short number elongated onstage with interludes between false finishes. Its pitiful title doesn’t do justice to its self-reflective lyrics. I’d never paid them much attention before, but the words felt weighty in the moment, as she reflected on her success. Instead of bouncing across the stage, jokingly simulating sex with her bandmates (and sometimes the audience) as she was generally wont to do, King Princess stayed still for “Do You Wanna See Me Crying?,” singing in slow motion with her mouth pressed against the mic, framed by a strong beam of blue light.

King Princess’s final encore song takes its title from my favorite state in the Union, so maybe that’s why I liked it, but I think the range of intense energies

King Princess at the piano during the concert. julia holzman

surrounding “Ohio”—the only unreleased song she played the whole night—is what really made it stand out. She prefaced “Ohio” by pointing out her girlfriend in the crowd: Quinn Wilson, creative director for Lizzo, who was passing around a joint with Princess’s high school friends.

King Princess chatted with all of them, telling them to stop distracting her, then launched into “Ohio,” sustaining eye contact with Wilson throughout the song’s loving parts. The audience watched them like tennis spectators—or at the very least, I did. Then King Princess went wild, and I’m 99 percent sure I saw the glint of a broken string flying around at the end of her electric bass—an appropriate end to the night, and especially to the song she most wanted us to know was rock.

I really don’t love King Princess as a person. I’m firmly back to my Wednesday afternoon position: “I wouldn’t date King Princess.” But she puts on a good show, and on behalf of Chicago’s lesbians, I think I have to thank her.