Counterculture Magazine Issue Two

Counterculture Magazine Issue Two

“Growing Pains”

Table of Contents

Photo

Letter from the Editor

Growing up is hard to do. It’s a near universal truth, one that has been sung about in countless songs, written in every classic bildungsroman, and is even documented in academic journals. Growing up is a journey, and— in what I think is a little acknowledged fact— it’s one that never stops. For contemporary society, adulthood is where one stops “growing up,” based in the somewhat ageist approach that what grows up must eventually come down in the gentle decline of ageing. But I think that’s false. We spend our entire lives growing up, changing, developing, and becoming different people, whether for better or for worse. It’s a sentiment that is most applied to individuals, but in the past few months I have seen growing up— and all the pains that it comes with— manifest in a different form: the college campus.

College campuses have grown a lot since their arrival to the United States with Harvard University in the 15th century. Since then, colleges have changed their academics, campus structure, and even the way students are supposed to feel during the experience. As sociologist Lisa Wade writes in her book American Hookup, the notion of college as being a place for “fun” didn’t become prevalent until the 20th century, when schools realized that it could be an effective marketing technique. But our outlook on fun isn’t the only thing that has changed either. In the past 50 years, the American collegiate system has undergone enormous changes in the ways in which we admit, treat, and assist marginalized students. Since the desegregation of higher education in the 1950s and the creation of affirmative action in the 1960s. marginalized students have been fighting for a fair, equitable place at colleges across the nation, where they seek to combat and dismantle the white supremacy and patriarchy that at times feels omnipresent and all consuming. Colleges have grown up. And more than anyone, marginalized students have felt the pain— the pain of fighting for equity in institutions that resist it all nearly all costs.

Issue Two of Counterculture is titled “Growing Pains” for this exact reason. As a group of student activists, scholars, and thinkers, we know the pains that come from being in an institution that is still, exactly 50 years after the first Black students graduated from Westhampton College, struggling with decentering the voices and needs of those who are white, wealthy, cisgender, male, and heterosexual. This semester, we’ve especially seen the pain of being at an institution that has certainly increased its diversity, yes, but has not increased its tolerance.

From a white freshman student attacking a Black delivery driver simply trying o do his job, to groups of students dressing up in racist and derogatory Halloween costumes, it’s become more clear than ever: the University of Richmond has got some growing to do. And this growth will be painful. At the end of the day, this institution must decide whether it will continue to protect the values of white supremacy that are entrenched in its history or begin the process of truly achieving equity through abolishment, restorative justice, and healing. As our faculty advisor Dr. Thad Williamson eloquently put it in his recent Op-Ed for The Collegian: “We simply cannot become a democratic community of learning without also challenging White and class privileges at their root.”

As a magazine, we’ve also begun to grow. After beginning last year with virtually no resources or knowledge about how to create and develop a publication, this year we boast even more writers, thinkers, and creatives, and are continuing to flourish in the midst of adversity. It is our hope that this magazine can continue, as we further our growth, to push the minds of individuals at the University of Richmond to expand in ways that promote activism and equitable thought.

This issue of Counterculture grapples with several topics, including xenophobia, transphobia, the student debt crisis, and Palestinian liberation. It is our hope that by the end of this issue you know— as we do— that the more we grow, the stronger we are. Happy reading.

Best, Christian Herald Founder and Editor in Chief

Acknowledgements

The Executive Board of Counterculture Magazine would like to extend much gratitude to everyone who participated in this project and helped us create Issue Two. It is because of your support that we were able to keep the momentum we needed to establish this organization and make it into the magazine it is today.

We would first like to extend a huge thank you to our faculty advisor, Dr. Thad Williamson at the Jepson School of Leadership. Dr. Williamson was one of the first supporters of this project and helped us to conceive many of the ideas that are foundational to the magazine. His support during our time as both an affiliated and unaffiliated organization is unprecedented, and we are forever grateful.

Next, we would also like to thank our team of writers, who have persisted through this project despite academic and personal stress. Thank you for telling your stories and providing your insights, as well as devoting much of your time to the creation of this project. Without your hard work, this magazine would not be able to exist. We would also like to extend a thank you to our new creative design team for developing the concept for this issue and making it come to life through visual narratives.

Lastly, we would like to thank the larger University of Richmond community for their support. From sharing social media posts from the Counterculture Instagram account to telling us how excited you were to see this project come to fruition, your endless support and enthusiasm propelled us to make this issue come alive. We are elated to have you as our mentors, peers, and friends.

Photo Credit: Grace Brogan

Caught in the Crossfires of Culture Wars

On Youngkin and His 2022 Policies

Vaulted into public conversation by James Davison Hunter in 1991, he defined ‘culture wars’ as America’s fights over matters like abortion, LGBT rights, and religion in public schools. Inserting himself into American culture wars, Glenn Youngkin was considered a ‘conservative warrior’ as he campaigned to become Virginia’s next governor throughout 2021. He ran on “kitchen-table issues” which, according to his definition, included inflation, schools, and safe communities. While these are seemingly harmless, his platform constructed itself on silencing diverse voices in the face of important issues (Hilu 2022).

When discussing schools, especially, Youngkin advocates against teaching Critical Race Theory; instead, he’s in favor of the whitewashed history currently taught and for the “power of the parents.” This promotion of parental power in schools specifically targets transgender youth, making schools, hypocritically, unsafe spaces for these students. To do this, Youngkin pioneered and passed a set of model policies for the treatment of transgender students in 2022, completely abolishing previous ones from 2021. When defining the purpose of the 2022 policies, the document states they will reaffirm

Photo Credit: Pexels

“the rights of parents to determine how their children will be raised and educated,” as the 2021 ones failed to do so and ignored legal and constitutional principles (VDOE 2022 ). It cited the Fourteenth Amendment and the Virginia Code of Conduct to justify the right of the parent to “direct the upbringing, education, and control of their children” (VDOE 2022). If these policies are brought into full effect, they will essentially strip students of their right to make individual choices or demand any needs from the school. Youngkin’s updated policies insult transgender students by implying they do not know what is best for themselves, and they allow transphobic parents even more opportunities to oppress their children.

During the public comment period on these policies, countless comments were submitted, by people expressing both opposition and support. One student conveyed their fear of the policies’ passage; they would be forced to come out to their parents, unable to use their proper pronouns, and feel unsafe at school. Some students showed their disgust toward the school board for using trans students as pawns to push their conservative agenda ( CommentID 202703). A recent graduate of a Virginia high school, one of which will be subject to these policies, states these policies will kill children. Homelessness among trans children is disproportionate, familial abuse is more likely, and suicide rates skyrocket.

When students are forced to come out, they risk losing their homes and being pushed into harm’s way. On the contrary, most comments in support of the policies parrot Youngkin’s hateful speech and are outright transphobic. They state that we must keep schools free of “gender confusion” or we must secure the rights of the parents. If parents want their children to be open with them about their gender, they should support them and warrant that respect themselves; it should not be required of the student to do something they are not comfortable with.

Legality of 2022 Policies

Expectedly, experts say Governor Youngkin’s initiatives are likely to be struck down in courts.  His model policies that force transgender students to use restrooms, locker rooms, and join sport teams that conflict with their identity violate the Virginia Code of Conduct, which bans gender-based discrimination in schools. In another violation, students are not permitted to change their preferred name or pronouns without parental consent. The 2022 policies attempt to cover up this violation by stating each trans student should be treated with ‘respect, compassion, and dignity’ but, as legal director of Virginia’s ACLU Eden Heilman observes, “That’s not how the law works.” ( Weiner 2022; VDOE 2022).

The method used to propose these new policies is another factor that could be subject to legal challenges. Typically, when the governor and their administration does not favor a certain statute, they do not use an executive branch action. Instead, they go to the General Assembly to submit recommendations for changes to the bill. By veering from the standard methods of contesting a statute, Governor Youngkin shows that he is aware of the controversy he stirs by proposing these new measures but attempts to avoid any pushback by using a backdoor process. The 2022 policies also raise concerning implications for state governments. If these policies are put into effect, it sets the precedent for states to have the ability to suppress LGBTQ+ communities, even if otherwise stated in their Codes of Conduct. And this does not just mean for schools, it means in the workplace, housing market, and essentially any other institution or entity.

2021 Model Policies

The passage of the original policies in 2021 was considered a major victory for transgender rights in Virginia and occurred alongside the amendment to the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA), which is in the Virginia State Code of Conduct. The VHRA, originally passed in 1964 with the national Civil Rights Act, was amended to include sexual orientation and gender identity as basis for discrimination. The policies and amendment come after a long fight for LGBTQ+ visibility in legislature, 12

with the definition of sex in the Code of Conduct being challenged throughout the 2010s and several court cases ruling under this unclear definition. The amendment clarified the definition, making it apparent that LGBTQ+ individuals are protected from discrimination in the state of Virginia, which was long overdue. The 2021 policies were another step the Virginia government took to codify transgender rights into state law. In the document provided by the Virginia Department of Education detailing the 2021 Model Policies, the equity priorities, and thus long term goal of the policies, are to curate a culturally competent workforce, uplift marginalized student groups, level access for early learning opportunities, and allow every student to realize their full potential. Citing the American Psychological Association, National Association of School Psychologists (2020), and American Academy of Pediatrics (2018), the VDOE acknowledges that differences in gender identities are a usual part of human diversity, and each person has the “‘inherent human right to equal opportunity and a physically and psychologically safe environment within all institutions.’” The document also provides definitions of inclusive vocabulary, such as gender-expansive, gender expression, gender identity, and gender transition, among others. The document goes on to detail the measures that school boards should take.

The VDOE provides guidelines for policies including: bullying, harassment, and discrimination, student privacy/confidentiality, student identification, school records; dress code, access to activities and facilities, and professional development and training. Each section provides an explanation of context for why transgender students may feel discrimination under this specific pretense, working actions educators can take to support these students, and citations of legislature related to the specific section topic (ie. student privacy/confidentiality) preceding the official writing of the model policy. The document concludes with a list of resources for school divisions, model and existing policies and guidelines, professional development resources, resources for students, resources for parents, and advocacy organizations.

Since the passage of these Model Policies, though, they have been largely ignored by school districts. Very few have actually adopted the principles, some are poorly attempting to do so and not giving it their full effort, and most are outrightly disregarding the law. The failure of statewide adoption can be largely attributed to the fact that neither the original proposal bills or the subsequent Model Policies lay out punishment for noncompliance.

Conclusion

Seemingly, these policies align directly with what Governor Youngkin aims to achieve in his term:

the advancement of schools and the creation of safe communities. Nonetheless, Youngkin chose to discard these policies, and by extension, transgender students personal freedoms, in favor of replacing them for less inclusive, more dangerous policies. If Youngkin was truly dedicated to the improvement of his state, he would view the failure of the widespread adoption of the 2021 policies as an opportunity to define consequences for those who do not comply, not as one to regress the state back to its pre-2020 condition.

Accepting these policies equates to accepting outright discrimination and transphobia. The harsh reality is we cannot just expect transgender students to be respected in schools; we must protect and support them. If these policies are enacted, we are murdering trans children and forcing them to spend time in unsafe, potentially abusive environments. We have to keep fighting, advocating, and pursuing equitable ends for transgender students. Oppose the 2022 “Model” Policies. Speak out and openly about transgender rights. It is only when we work together to support our more vulnerable counterparts that we can all be free.  ***

Palestinian Activism on College Campuses

On October 11, 2022 at George Washington University, a protest led by GW Students for Justice in Palestine and GW Jewish Voice for Peace organizations occurred outside of an ev ent being hosted by the GW for Israel and GW Hillel groups.

The event was called “A Conversation with Doron Tenne.” Doron Tenne held various positions within the Israeli Defense Force during a period known as the First Intifada, when over 2,000 Palestinian people were when thousands of Palestinian people were killed during a series of mass protests against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza).

In response to the protest, both GW for Israel and GW Hillel issued statements. GW Hillel’s statement read that the protests “[limited] the ability of our Jewish students to freely learn,”

Photo Credit: Amal Ali

calling the behavior of the protesters “aggressive action.” GW Jewish Voice for Peace responded in their statement that the specific wording of GW Hillel’s statement “[asserted] that the protest targeted Jewish students and the Jewish community on campus at large” when in reality, it “perpetuates the conflation of antiZionism and anti-semitism.” The President of George Washington University also released a letter to all students following the protest, but did not specifically address the event itself or the fact that a former IDF official was being hosted.

George Washington University is only one of many universities where Palestinian activism groups have protested hosting speakers that were directly involved in the oppression of Palestinian people. On October 27, 2022, the University of Maryland’s Students for Justice in Palestine issued a statement regarding a speaker event being hosted by the Joseph and Alma Gildenhorn Institute for Israel Studies on campus. The speaker was Ambassador Michael Herzog, a former general in the Israeli Defense Forces. UMD Students for Justice in Palestine stated that the purpose of the Israeli Defense Forces was to “subjugate and ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their ancestral homelands,” which was their purpose for opposing the event.

As Palestinian activism continues to gain traction on college campuses, concerns about the safety of the

students openly participating in the cause rise. On George Washington’s campus, members of GW Hillel leadership argued in their statement that the protest regarding the Doron Tenne event crossed a line threatening the safety of Jewish students. This argument is a symptom of a larger debate occurring on many college campuses: are openly anti-Zionist events and protests inherently antisemitic? Many members of Students for Justice in Palestine chapters respond that they are not; in fact, these members point out that mistaking anti-Zionism for antisemitism is the teal problem,as while some definitions of Zionism state that it is the belief in the development and protection of the Jewish state in Israel, antisemitism is the systemic oppression of Jewish individuals.

On some college campuses, such as the campus of the University of New York, students engaging in Palestinian activism have to think about their actions strategically to protect their academic and professional standing. Some students worry about being listed on the website of the Canary Mission, which lists pro-Palestine students and calls them out for supposedly being anti-semitic. Others worry about campaigns being set up to besmirch their name and prevent them from navigating their campus or job safely.

This was exactly what happened to student Nerdeen Kiswani, who was labeled as antisemite of the year by stopantisemitism.org. Her college eventually had to step in and issue a statement advocating for the protection of the right to free speech.

For some pro-Palestine activists, the threats go so far as to alert the FBI, leading to interrogations that are prompted by their names being on the blacklists of some pro-Israel organizations such as the Canary Mission. All evidence points to an undebatable truth: students advocating for the freedom of Palestine are not necessarily safe on their campuses. They often engage in activist efforts at the expense of their own security.

Students at the University of Richmond established their own chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine in the 2021-2022 academic year. Razan Khalil was at the forefront of this effort, and they mentioned several roadblocks that they experienced while trying to get the club approved. Many of these roadblocks reflected those that the Students for Justice in Palestine chapters at George Washington University and the University of Maryland faced. During the year, Razan had to meet with a committee three times and was “‘interrogated’ on whether Students for Justice in Palestine was exclusive toward Jewish students, whether [it] was antisemitic, and whether [it] would directly target Israeli students.”

Reportedly, one of the members of the committee said that they couldn’t believe the University was allowing such an “antisemitic organization” on campus after one of several meetings with Khalil.

One of the recent events hosted by UR’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter was a virtual discussion with Dr. Angela Davis, world-renowned scholar and author of Freedom is a Constant Struggle. In an effort to curate a list of questions that students had for Dr. Davis, a form was released online for submissions prior to the event. In this form, Khalil noted that some questions that were submitted seemed to target Students for Justice in Palestine, which was a complete antithesis of the purpose of the event itself. This was only one of many instances of questioning that Students for Justice in Palestine has experienced on campus since its founding, as noted before. Just as on other campuses, UR’s chapter has been critiqued constantly for antisemitism while in its mission statement, it simply calls for more awareness about the injustices that Palestinian people face in their homeland.

Seeing as opposition to Palestinian activism is present on many campuses, it is clear that there is a distinct pattern of discrimination against Palestinian people as a whole in the administration of many higher education institutions.

What is quite interesting is that while Palestinian activist organizations call out the actions of other organizations that may promote the ongoing systemic oppression of Palestinian people worldwide, they oftentimes experience more repercussions than the organizations promoting the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in their choices of events and speakers themselves.

As seen at George Washington University, Students for Justice in Palestine’s protest elicited a response from the President insinuating that the rhetoric of the protest was discriminatory and therefore needed to be condemned, yet no higher administrative official spoke up about the fact that organizations at the University were hosting speakers that directly contributed to the deaths of innocent Palestinian people. When actions like these add up on a college campus, they promote a subtle message about how little many higher education institutions care about the human rights of Palestinian people, and what lengths they will go to in order to ensure that Palestinian activism is met with vitriol.

Another point is to be made about the freedom of speech argument that some organizations will utilize to target pro-Palestine students.

Many of these organizations insist that while students are entitled to freedom of speech, openly criticizing the Israeli government and military for the death of so many Palestinian people is directly correlated with the targeting of all Jewish students on campus. This line of thinking suggests that the conflation of antiZionism and anti-semitism that GW Jewish Voice for Peace addressed in their statement is most certainly present on college campuses.

With that conflation comes the restriction of activists’ rights to speak up about the atrocities committed by the state of Israel. It simply does not make sense to acknowledge freedom of speech and then explicitly deny it to a group of people on the false claim of religious discrimination.

That being said, members of UR’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter still express hope about the future of their cause. Khalil noted that “with every chapter they have seen, the resistance is met with the support of many,” meaning that an organized collective of students and community members is always ready to defend the organization when accusations of antisemitism begin.

However, it is important to note that there are still concerns about the safety of pro-Palestine activists on college campuses such as UR’s, given that GW’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter is now facing disciplinary charges because of their protest against the Doron Tenne event.

George Washington University charged the organization with misconduct, and a Palestine Legal attorney representing Students for Justice in Palestine rightfully responded to the charge with a poignant statement: “SJP followed all the rules around postering and directed their members and allies to do the same. But GW is selectively targeting this group for punishment, when there is zero evidence of any wrongdoing. This looks like racist, anti-Palestinian profiling and the law does not support it.”

When legality enters the conversation, it becomes obvious that the rights of pro-Palestine activists on college campus are actively being challenged at every level. It just goes to show that Palestinian activism on UR’s campus is likely to continue facing criticism and opposition at every turn, meaning that awareness about the cause must be circulated constantly in order to protect those openly engaging with it.  ***

Editor’s Note: This article has undergone revision for clarity. (December 2022)

UR’s Approach to Marketing and Retaining Increasing Numbers of Latinx and Hispanic Individuals

According to decades of statistics and research from the census bureau, the Latinx/Hispanic population in the U.S. continues to rise. In 2020, its results indicate that the Latinx and Hispanic population grew 23% since 2010, from 50.5 million to 62.1 million people. These national growth rates are reflected across the different states, as well. For example, in Virginia, these communities have grown to include 10.5% of the population. Within this statistic it also becomes important to note that American born Latinx and Hispanic individuals from mixed families continue to drive these growth rates.

19

Photo Credit: Grace Brogan

Consequently, not only are these communities increasing in size, but in English proficiency as well. In 2019, 72% of this population 5 years of age or older were fluent in English, a 13% increase from 2000. These data figures demonstrate the cultural and demographic changes occurring all over the country.  After processing the information explained above, I had several questions for corporate America regarding the different ways they’ve accounted for these trends. As the U.S. consists of too much territory to tackle in one research project, I decided to focus on Richmond, Virginia. In doing so, I conducted a case study on the University of Richmond to observe their marketing approach in regards to Latinx and Hispanic communities. It also became important to educate myself about the culture within this organization. Hopefully, after reading my article one will develop an understanding of how the trends manifest themselves in real life situations.

The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal assistance. If institutions are found to be engaging in any of the discriminatory practices stated above, the federal agency providing assistance should either initiate fund termination proceedings or refer the matter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to ensure that appropriate legal action is pursued..

Thus, the University of Richmond must treat all students, potential or otherwise, with both equity and fairness. If they fail to comply with these laws, they risk losing federal assistance. However, as the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) oversees all schools receiving educational funding from the U.S. government, the implementation requirements remain vague. Given that there are no clear parameters of enforcement, institutions often interpret these laws in various ways, which quickly becomes problematic

Additionally, the 2008 Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act requires colleges to report the percentage of full-time students enrolled by specific categories like gender, race, and ethnicity. Not only does this transparency help the university gauge overall diversity and environment, but it also allows students to learn more about the institution, as well.

After discussing the legalities, I want to consider the student population at UR. Out of the University's 3,164 undergraduates, 38% are students of color. Within this statistic, 10% of the population is Hispanic or Latinx.

When comparing these statistics with those present in the 2020 National Census, the discrepancies immediately become clear. The university must continue to address issues related to racism, systemic oppression, and white supremacy in order to become a diverse institution.

To learn more about how UR approaches these statistics, I reached out to the Office of Admissions. They work with organizations that serve large Latinx communities in order to gain more information regarding these demographics. The Office also consults higher education based companies to learn more about national and regional landscapes. They use this knowledge to recruit in areas with various demographics and socioeconomics. Thirdly, they attend college fairs across the country to engage with a variety of individuals. In the process, Admissions encourages students, faculty, and administrators to participate in events that educate others about UR. They firmly believe that "the more we can show students what's available at Richmond, the more success we will have." Within this dynamic, they also acknowledge the role that parents and guardians play: "The more we can inform and involve parents/guardians, the more success we will likely have. Additionally, the more we connect with partner organizations…that students trust, the better they will be at advising students to give UR a closer look." Building confidence in the college process is essential when it comes to picking schools. Thus, Admissions aims to be transparent with potential students to build deeper connections, which encourages more people to seriously consider the institution.

To help potential families through the college process, Admissions provides several key resources. In addition to virtual and in person programs conducted in Spanish, several members of their staff are also bilingual. They use their skills to engage Spanish speakers in one-onone situations and in group settings. Despite the fact that these crucial resources exist, they aren't clearly advertised on the University's website. Subsequently, to make UR more accessible to Latinx and Hispanic families, the school must increase the number of bilingual resources on their website in a way that is clearly marked and easy to find.

In an effort to make the University more accessible financially, the institution offers several different packages. For any student living in Virginia with a total annual parental income of $60,000 or less, the University guarantees a full scholarship that covers both room and board. UR also offers assistance to students coming from the city of Richmond. They promise to meet the financial needs of individuals that graduated from a Richmond Public or Magnet School by providing grant and scholarship aid. According to Admissions, they “share the myriad of financial aid opportunities available from Richmond for Virginians. We encourage those in Virginia to give Richmond a closer look. [The office] ensures that the message is out there.”

Graph 1, 2021 HERI Staff Climate Survey

Consequently, by educating more people about UR's resources, it becomes clear that the university hopes to attract more students who come from different backgrounds. Even though the University of Richmond advertises these resources to increase the number of diverse students at the school, they don't have any specific goals for these communities. This lack of specificity creates several problems. For one, UR tends to celebrate any increase in diversity. However, in doing so, university officials don't discuss important topics like creating a more welcoming environment, or implementing new programs to help with this transition. As a result, many systemic issues, like racism, never get solved. These tendencies perpetuate harmful dynamics for  faculty and students alike. Additionally, these patterns ensure that progress is slow going. 22

After learning about these trends, I wanted to understand how they relate to faculty demographics. In an interview with UR’s provost, Dr. Legro expressed his desire to develop a broad faculty base to ensure that students have the ability to see themselves and their identities reflected within the University. Afterwards, he explained that over the past four years, the percentage of faculty of color has increased from 14 to 29%. In regards to international staff, the figures grew from 10% in 2014 to 27% in 2021. To better understand faculty demographics, I included the above graph:

As one observes, only 2.2% of the faculty are Latinx or Hispanic professors. These trends become problematic when compared to the Census, as the percentage of Latinx and Hispanic professors isn't representative of local or domestic communities. Not only does UR exclude many capable individuals from becoming professors, but they prevent students from being educated in a setting that supports all types of identities. Subsequently, this dynamic perpetuates an isolating environment that makes it harder to be seen and heard. In conclusion, the University needs to hire more diverse faculty members.

In regards to UR’s distributive leadership model, there are three main aspects. The first part consists of the senior leaders. The president, his cabinet members, the Provost, and all of the vice presidents work to create a sense of urgency when it comes to expanding diversity. In doing so, they model important practices to help encourage the community to lean into various social justice initiatives. The second part includes the Institutional Coordinating Council (ICC), which is composed of students, faculty, and staff who think about long term policies. Tasked with helping the campus align its efforts and goals, they work on developing tools and communications to ease this process.

The third facet consists of Dr. Amy Howard, the Senior Administrative Officer for Equity and Community. She acts as the bridge between the senior leaders and the ICC to ensure that both teams are coordinated with each other as the University works on developing diversity initiatives and goals.

As of now, UR has three main goals when it comes to DEI: “representation (recruiting more diverse students and staff to ensure that the campus community reflect the nation and the city, and the world), belonging (to have an inclusive living, learning, and work environments that allow all members of the community to participate in the institution while also feeling a sense of belonging), and capability (become a skilled intercultural community that enables and enriches an excellent academic experience).” These goals are absolutely essential to the success of the university.  However, there are several problems UR faces in trying to achieve the ideals above. For one, the word ‘diversity’ warrants confusion. Oftentimes, people use it to discuss a multitude of topics. Therefore, the meaning of the word becomes ambiguous. Without "a specific delineation of what the concept means in particular contexts, people may construe diversity in a manner consistent with their s ocial motivations.”

Thus, instead of creating a more welcoming environment, “attempts to achieve equitable racial representation via the pursuit of diversity…[allows] people to turn diversity into whatever they want it to be.” This phenomenon exists on campus, as various schools and offices have different ideas of what diversity entails. There are many reasons for these discrepancies, like lack, miscommunication, a lack of coordination, and the presence of shadow values. In a 2019 ICC report, they explain that DEI goals and principles are “frequently disciplined by a set of shadow values, such as prestige, distinctiveness, brand image, risk-aversion, and other values historically associated with patterns of exclusion, privilege, and inequity." Consequently, UR’s distributive leadership model must account for this phenomenon when trying to create an accepting environment.

To demonstrate this dynamic, I compared the Jepson School of Leadership Studies with the Robins Schools of Business. After entering Jepson’s website, they immediately acknowledge that “Our students confront a world marked by pervasive inequities reflecting deep legacies of racism, sexism, and colonialism as well continuing and growing inequalities of wealth and power.” They also explain that in order to commit to equity and inclusion, they must transform

“University culture to create an inclusive, diverse community of learning in which all students engage in the challenge of learning about experiences other than their own.” These quotes indicate that Jepson is aware of systems that disadvantage people of color. As such, they aim to change them in a way that ensures all types of people can establish a sense of belonging  and community.

However, when looking at the Robins School of Business, they emphasize different values and goals. On their website, they explain that the school’s “curriculum is built on highquality classroom teaching reinforced by scholarship, heightened experiential learning outside of the classroom, and strong ties and relationships with reputed corporate and government entities.” They highlight different principles, like prestige, quality education, and networking. The only mention of social justice occurs at the very end of the page: “Consistent with our mission, our scholarship addresses important domestic and global topics…[like] management practices and understanding and targeting diverse consumers” Even though the Business School mentions the importance of creating an inclusive environment, they don’t provide additional information about how the institution will achieve this work. Thus, when compared to the Jepson, Robins doesn't emphasize the advancement of social justice initiatives.

In conclusion, while the UR offers impressive academic programs, there is much work to be done to improve the school’s diversity. Even though the distributive leadership model exists to ensure that the campus remains aligned, I found many inconsistencies throughout my research. As the term diversity has a vague meaning, many departments developed their own definitions and goals. In respect to the Office of Admissions, this phenomenon manifested in unclear objectives that fail to create far-reaching change. Instead of focusing on territories with substantial population growth, they locate many staff members in areas like New England, that have more stagnant growth rates. Consequently, they fail to market UR to important communities. Additionally, the existence of white supremacy, shadow values, and racism fosters a harmful environment. Consequently, the University is unable to become a welcoming place for all types of students. Even though there are tools to help initiate progress in these areas, important changes won't occur until all departments recognize these behaviors, discuss them, and work on developing reforms. Only then can UR cultivate an environment that accepts all students in a way that allows them to thrive. ***

Isol-Asian: How Xenophobia on Campus Contributes to the

Alienation of Asian Students at UR

Bruce Lee. But I couldn’t even be upset or offended, because the receipt of ignorant comments such as these had become a daily occurrence for me. Whether it be classmates asking me where I am from, and after replying “Los Angeles”, they counter: “no, where are you really from?”, usually followed by “What kind of Asian are you?” or “XXXX? That’s in China somewhere right?” I cannot even begin to count the number of times I have been compared to the stars of Squid Game. All this points towards an overarching ignorance of Asian and Asian American culture and a lack of self-awareness in unintended (or intended) xenophobia.  26

life as an Asian American or International student can become isolating. In this article, I seek to uncover the reasons behind such isolation amongst my fellow Asian students by analyzing the Xenophobia Report from UR’s First A nnual Equity Summit and how UR can work to create better solutions for the belonging of Asian students. I will discuss the three largest ways in which Asian students experience isolation: through microaggressions, a lack of faculty support, and racial segregation on campus.

Photo Credit: Grace Brogan

Microaggressions

My experiences above are examples of microaggressions experienced by Asian American and Asian International students in universities across the country, outlined by scholars Hye Jin Tina Yeo and Ruby Mendenhall’s taxonomy of different kinds of microaggressions from their article “Asian International Student and Asian American Student: Mistaken Identity and Racial Microaggressions.” Questions about my racial background are examples of “microinsults,” or,  “interpersonal interactions that communicate rudeness, insensitivity, slights, and insults that demean international students’ racial, gender, religion, or cultural and national identity.” Microinsults may on surface level disguise racial bias under compliments or positive statements, such as “You’re Asian, so you must be smart!” or “In China do they eat dogs and bats?” These microinsults, while they may seem innocuous, are the most harmful forms of oppression. For example, telling someone that because they’re Asian they must be naturally gifted at academics ignores the realities of many who have had to work hard to achieve their goals, including international students who have left their homes to study in another country.

Concerned about the racial unrest and COVID-related xenophobia on the University of Richmond campus during spring semester 2020, the xenophobia panel of the first annual Equity Summit was organized,

bringing together students and faculty to discuss said issues as a singular body.

Overt racism, in tandem with microinsults and microassaults, increased at an alarming rate during the Covid-19 pandemic, and Asian students were definite victims. Racist and xenophobic treatment and experiences were cited in UR’s xenophobia report, regardless of immigration or citizenship status. The predominant view amongst students that European international students are “cooler” than Asian international students, is a poignant nod towards the over valuing of white culture over foreign culture on campus, that will never truly belong to the community. For example, European international students are more likely to be invited or let known of fraternity parties on or off campus than Asian international students because of their assumed “high alcohol tolerance” or “fun-loving nature” and the stereotype that Asians “don’t party” or “study all the time.”

Environmental microaggressions occur on an institutional level, and are no more evident at UR. Generally unnoticeable by majority and privileged groups, the Equity Summit’s xenophobia report has pointed towards UR’s Eurocentric curriculum, where Asian, African, and Latin American departments are grouped together like an afterthought, and courses that place emphasis on the East-West divide and indicate China as a rival of the United States.

All these factors indirectly nurture a culture of xenophobia on UR’s campus.

Ignorance of the Faculty

The Equity Summit held Spring Semester of the 2020 academic year was held to address xenophobic and racist issues and incidents at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, but faculty moderators were disappointed by the lack of awareness and engagement amongst their peers, in polar contrast to the abundant conversations and desire for action amongst students.    “F,”a senior I interviewed regarding this topic, also mentioned the number of times professors mistook or confused him with other Asian students in classes, another example of how faculty members at U of R fail to equitably include their Asian students.

Though the Office for International Education has provided comprehensive support in assisting international students obtain student visa and work permits and providing legal, financial, social, and culturally relevant resources and supports, international students sometimes feel viewed as mere economic commodities for the school after experiencing a lack of support or direct ignorance from faculty members, who as figureheads of the university that students interact with most, are often their bridge into American culture. Like a class, a professor can be the “make or break” factor for many.

of faculty support or ignorance is more harmful than the same from peers because of this.

Racially-segregated Cliques: The divide between international and domestic students is most clearly evident in social divisions, where each group is composed of different students based on social group, identity, or affiliation. As I am sure you have noticed in the dining hall, in classrooms, and on campus in general, many Chinese international students sit exclusively amongst each other, displaying little effort or desire to socialize with their local peers. Speaking to my Chinese roommate about this, he tells me “because none of us speak English,” pointing towards an assumption amongst Asian international students that they will be shunned by locals for not speaking English to a “satisfactory” standard. And this is not just the case with international students either–with the exception of a few outliers, students generally sit with people of the same race, creating a bubble within a bubble. At a school that is already in the shelter of Henrico County, another racially segregated school system, students continue to further this pattern, buttressing emotions of racial and social isolation on campus. For Asian students such as myself who do not necessarily identify with these aforementioned groups, finding a group to sit with may be challenging.

What can be done to help?

Xenophobia is rarely discussed on campus, in the classroom, or at lunch. The panel and forthcoming 2022 xenophobia report makes clear the need to further address xenophobia, among students and especially faculty. While students have a general or comprehension of xenophobia through social media or contemporary sources, there are not as many resources or opportunities for faculty to analyze such issues. The Equity Summit bridged the gap between students and faculty, two usually disparate groups, exemplary of how healthy conversation and collaboration can lead to tangible results and improvement in the realm of addressing xenophobia on campus such as healthy discussion over topics that may be perceived as difficult or discomforting, and increased faculty-student collaboration, strengthening relationships on campus and affirming a sense of belonging amongst all in the UR community.

***

Sex Education Changes and Other Implications After the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill

What is the ‘Don’t Say Gay or Trans’ Bill?

At the beginning of this year, after the previous talk of a similar concept, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis passed a new law formally called the Parental Rights in Education bill. With critics finding the legal name to be too modest for its true effects, they have unofficially changed the name of the bill to ‘Don’t Say Gay or Trans.’ The aim behind the bill is to forbid talk on sexual orientation and gender identity for school grades kindergarten through third grade.

While achieving the goal of limiting LGBTQ+ discussion within adolescent classrooms, the objective is pushed off more as a means for parents to have more say in their children’s education. Explicitly included in the bill, the purpose is to “reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children.” Although the extreme of this legislation is recently being put into actuality, versions of it have existed for years previously.

Moreover, this censorship has been brought into discourse for more than a dozen states, and the number is gradually increasing as additional states bring the bill into reality.

Prior to the Florida Passing  Within the beginning years of this discourse, some politicians sought to include the requirement for schools to inform parents if a student came out as LGBTQ+, though this was dropped from the amendment when the bill first began to seem obtainable. In its foundation, the goal was not for sexual identity and orientation discussion to be completely eliminated, but the intentions were guided towards not allowing the subjects into the curriculum officially instated in schools.

What is Changing Within Sex Education?

Immediately following the passing of the bill, teachers now must be concerned by the threat of lawsuits within the classroom, as there is natural confusion on what is and isn’t allowed. It must be noted that these changes have caused teachers to leave. Lawsuits have the possibility of being pursued if any public or private institution that receives federal funding exhibits material or discussion including any LGBTQ+ identities. These entities may even face the loss of federal funding for multiple years based on the severity of the opposing action.

Those who push for this bill explicitly hold grievances against the fact that varying school districts have sexual education curriculums within youth that integrate and support the discussion of sexuality, transgender identities, sexual orientation, and other gender-based topics. The need for additional sexual education in an environment that is healthy and inclusive for marginalized groups is based on how, when this curriculum is implemented properly, the sexual behavior of teens is healthier and properly informed. This results in lessened teen pregnancies and STIs. Not to mention, the sexual education system currently instituted in schools is already subpar, with only around half of US states requiring any sex education, and even fewer states demanding medical accuracy and information about contraception.

On the Side of the Legislature Proponents of the bill hold the argument that the intentions are towards halting gender ideals that are considered radical, as well as present sexual imagery. The effects the discourse is seen to have on the students are considered detrimental to development and not ageappropriate. House Republican Conference Vice Chairman Mike Johnson introduced the legislation in Congress and spoke for the bill's aim . He went into detail on how it should not be acceptable for federal tax dollars to go towards “private organizations that intentionally expose children under 10 years of age to sexually explicit material.”

Further, he sees the opposers as supporting the cause of forcing children to be taught radicalized gender theory instead of youthful topics of reading and writing. This thought of radical gender theory dehumanizes the people in the LGBTQ+ community as their ideology is pushed as filthy.

Those Against the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill Backlash ensued immediately, and public figures such as President Joe Biden, other politicians, and celebrities voiced their distaste for its hateful fundamentals. President Biden even went to the rightful extent of calling it “hateful.” The opposition begins with the concern that these necessary identity topics are being shown to the youth as inappropriate and untouchable, as well as misrepresenting the identities to the general public. While successfully silencing the LGBTQ+ community within the youth school setting, there are additional threats within programs regarding equity and inclusion. It is also pointed out how the rhetoric in the bill can be broadened easily, making it in the realm of possibility that lawsuits can be put into action with any discussion on the subject matter. Additionally, this language seemingly groups the contents of pornography with the topic of sexual orientation, when they should not be comparable to any extent.

Overall

The ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill, with the picture of protecting youth, has a reality of spreading misinformation and dangerous ideas about the LGBTQ+ community. This damaging action toward the future of education, as well as the personal identities of the students, is regressing civilization as some saw the sexual education previously instilled as already unsatisfactory and  far from enough. This agenda will be further pursued in additional states and should be something that the progressive public and politicians work against and fear for the sake of the nation's health and safety. The implications it holds on the lives of students can only be assumed as conditions persist, but the future does not seem to favor the children like the supporters of the bill attempt to come across. With the desperate need to go in the opposite direction of sexual education, this issue further divides political parties, pushing the children to the side when it is crucial for them to be the focal point as their developing minds are at risk. The negative intentions of the bill are clear, as the supporters push their reasoning to be that the children are being indoctrinated by an overtly sexual agenda teaching their children to be gay. The dangers of the future are apparent with this development, and public safety is in jeopardy.

Student Debt: A Crushing Price

One Rutgers University graduate spoke bluntly about his college experience. “College is a scam,” Rahul Gandhi, a political science graduate from New Jersey remarked. “You work for four years for a piece of paper that tells employers that you’re able to do a job you were already capable of doing. It’s a mass orchestrated scam that lines the pockets of wealthy CEOS, rather than benefiting loan borrowers.”

Unfortunately, this pessimistic attitude permeates throughout college campuses in America, from the wealthiest students to the poorest. Perhaps college itself is not a scam, but the price undoubtedly makes it feel that way. The high cost of college creates a barrier for entry for low-income students that makes one question whether the price justifies the cost. Similar problems exists for middle class students.

Photo Credit: Pexel

Although middle class students are able to cover some portion of the cost through their family’s savings, these students do not escape the burden of student loans through their economic status.

While college imparts a student with many valuable skills that often translate to success in a professional workspace, 42.8 million students have been forced to take out sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars of federal and private loans in order to obtain an education from an “esteemed” university. These loans accumulate exorbitant interest charges over the duration of the loan, only ceasing when the student pays the loan back in its entirety. College serves as an important transitional time from childhood to adulthood and, while not essential for development, aids many young adults in reaching their full potential. The prospective cost of loans and interest act as a deterrent for lowincome students, who question the value of a master’s or doctorate’s degree. In turn, this keeps lowincome students out of high earning fields like law or medicine, professions that require more than simply an undergraduate degree. It’s a brutal process that repeats every year during college admissions season.

According to the non-profit Education Data Initiative, the average yearly cost for an American college student is $35,551, “including books, supplies, and daily living expenses.” Over a four-year span, assuming that the student is only pursuing a bachelor’s degree, this cost totals over $140,000. For students pursuing a master’s degree or a doctorate, this price can easily exceed $200,000. While the amount of student grant aid has grown dramatically since 2011 ($50.2 billion in 2011-12 to 74.4 billion 2021-2022), the average undergraduate semester only receives $15,330 per semester, according to College Board’s Trends in Student Aid report. To contrast with the $74.4 billion granted by institutions in 2021-2022, parents and students borrowed $94.7 billion in order to pay for schooling in 2022. For 66% of American students (roughly 12.6 million students), the process of taking out loans is a normalized, streamlined process. Student loan servicers like Great Lakes, MOHELA, Nelnet, and many others paint themselves as saviors for lowincome students, advertising their loans as a pathway to a higher tax bracket. In reality, these servicers are more akin to robber barons, binding students to crushing loans that accumulate interest over time.

On August 24th, 2022, the Biden administration enacted a policy that would cancel $10,000 of debt for all students, and $20,000 of debt for students who received a Pell Grant. While this policy should be applauded for its relief that it provides to nearly 43 million American students, this policy does nothing to change the system that locked millions of students into debt in the first place. The same exorbitant prices and predatory loans remained locked in place, ensuring that President Biden will once again need to cancel debt in order to relieve Americans. This is not a sustainable model, as there is no guarantee that President Biden is re-elected in 2024. Republicans have shown little to no interest in the cancellation of student debt, and the policy has garnered criticism from Senate Republican leadership. Ted Cruz (R-TX) issued a statement the same day the Biden administration announced the policy, remarking that “This administration’s policy is to force blue collar workers and American families across the country to pay off the cost of a Washington bureaucrat’s college degree – it’s morally bankrupt.” This statement signals that higher education reform must go through the Democratic Party, or not at all, as Cruz’s statement has met little opposition from his Republican counterparts. Republicans thoroughly ignore the issue that student debt poses for students,

insisting that students should only borrow what they are able to pay back, ignoring the factors at play that have caused the student debt crisis. The reliance on student loans from loan providers is indicative of a larger issue in America; the lower and middle classes lack disposable income and are unable to afford the tools to advance their economic status without help from the government.

What many do not realize about the student loan crisis is that it is due in part to the actions of President Biden while he served as Delaware’s senator prior to his vice presidency. President Biden was a Senate veteran in 2005, holding considerable influence as a moderate Democrat who had served since 1973. A Republican-dominated Congress introduced the “Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act” in 2005, a bill that intended to tighten bankruptcy loopholes. Republicans had attempted to introduce similar bankruptcy reform bills under the Clinton administration in 1999 and 2000, but President Clinton utilized a “pocket veto” in order to avoid signing the bill into law. Among its supporters in the early version of the bill was Senator Biden, who championed it even as he assured Congress and his constituents that he was “not the senator from MBNA ”, a Delaware credit company who lobbied for the bill’s 2004 passage.

The bill would pass the Senate in a 74-25 vote, with eighteen Democratic Senators breaking rank and voting with their Republican counterparts. President Biden’s voice of support was influential among the 108th Congress, whose opposition could have potentially tanked the bill. Biden assured Congress that the bill would close bankruptcy loopholes, commenting in 2001, “Unnecessary and abusive bankruptcy costs everyone. This costs every single American consumer.” In reality, the bill prevented student borrowers from filing for bankruptcy, a move that would have a catastrophic impact for the next generation of borrowers. Over the next fifteen years, the total federal loan balance would increase from $520 billion to $1.745 trillion, as the bill only made it harder for the average American to claim bankruptcy on credit card and student loan debt.

President Biden’s commitment to the cancellation of student debt represents a departure from previous policies – a sign of a larger shift to the left that he has orchestrated over the last four years. Joe Biden should not be fully blamed for his impact on the student debt crisis, but his role in creating the issue should not be overlooked.

President Biden’s support of the 2005 bill was instrumental to the bill’s passage, as President Biden stood as one of the senior ranking members of the Democratic Senate at this time.

As it stands, President Biden is one of only four Democratic Senators who remain in Washington after voting for the bill’s passage, joined by Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Tom Carper (D-DE), and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who voted for the bill’s passage in the House of Representatives. To fully right the wrongs of the 2005 “Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act”, President Biden must ensure that he aims his reforms at the system of student debt, rather than purely the symptoms. This problem will only continue to get worse unless Democrats aim higher than just the symptoms; Americans watch Joe Biden’s, Chuck Schumer’s, and Nancy Pelosi’s next moves with anticipation.

Even now, the average loan payment has increased 17% since 2016, climbing from $393 to $460 per month. Federal oversight must take place over college expenses and costs. Year over year, the cost of college has increased, while the federal minimum wage has struggled to keep up with inflation and ballooning college costs. In 2005, at the time of the bill’s passage, the federal minimum wage was $5.15, only increasing to $7.25 in the seventeen years since. The last increase in the federal minimum wage took place in 2009, shortly after the Obama administration’s supermajority in Congress was sworn in.

Since 2010, the last year of Obama’s congressional supermajority, the cost of a private, four year university has increased from $22,677 to $32,825 in 2020. A $10,000 increase from 2010-2020, despite a relatively strong U.S. economy, is inexcusable. The Biden administration should be praised for its efforts to alleviate the student debt crisis, but investigation must be launched into higher education to find exactly why costs have increased so dramatically. Joe Biden’s legacy as a president can be defined, either negatively or positively, by his action and reaction to the student debt crisis.

***

Is CAPS an Effective Resource for All Students?

At first glance, the Counseling and Psychological Services at the University of Richmond appear robust. Their page on the University of Richmond website is full of a variety of resources from those for self-help, to options for therapy and the recently added warmline. The availability of such resources to students is comforting when mental health is worsening amongst students and a majority of students meet the criteria for at least one mental health issue . In a list of top 30 colleges that are “redefining how students improve their mental health” one website rates the University of Richmond as number nine. From the outside it is clear that UR is putting effort into student’s mental health. However, when examining such resources, it is important to consider the historical ways in which mental health institutions in the United States (US) have unequally treated people on the basis of race.

The US has a long history of mistreating Black patients for both their physical and mental health. From some psychiatrists in the 19th century who claimed that Black people could not be mentally ill to the more recent issue of overdiagnosis of schizophrenia in Black patients, it is obvious that the realm of psychology is not without a problematic and racist past, much like many other institutions in this country. For some people trying to access mental health resources in the world outside of college campuses, cost and finding a provider with which they can identify are barriers to treatment. 76.4% of licensed therapists in the US are white, while only a little over 4% are Black. This means that the percentage of Black therapists is less than one third of the overall percentage of Black people in the United States.

Photo Credit: Pexel

Fortunately, on campus cost is not an issue. At UR, therapists come from a variety of backgrounds and group therapy and support options that take some of the burden of identity off the provider are also available. CAPS also has a whole page on resources available for students of color under the heading of Race & Diversity. On this page

CAPS states the following: “Here at CAPS we understand that college can be a difficult time during which students may encounter both academic and social stressors. While the college experience can be stressful for all students, students of color may be subjected to racism and discriminatory behaviors, adding to their stress”. However, their link to CAPS Black Student Support Group currently leads to an error message. All of these resources may look nice when described in a brochure or on the CAPS website but the only real test of such student services is student opinion. Of the students I have spoken to about their CAPS experience, feelings about CAPS were decidedly mixed. Some issues include barriers to access that are unique to the CAPS program at UR. These barriers include being overwhelmed by the long CAPS application form which may keep students from starting therapy with CAPS, to the unique academic experience of college leaving students fearing they have no room in their schedule to access these services.

One mixed race student interviewed for this article described her experience with CAPS as “not good” and that she believed the program had good intentions, but did not execute their care in the most helpful manner, including not giving helpful and professional advice. She felt that her therapist dismissed some of her fears and mental health symptoms by not taking her concerns seriously. It is clear that by working closer with students CAPS could improve the actual experience of its services beyond just looking good on paper. Despite all the carefully included resources and well-written blurbs CAPS only serves its purpose when it can effectively help students, and right now it appears this program may be going through some of its own growing pains. Located on one of the CAPS pages there is a link to a general complaint form which students can file anonymous. However, this form is not specific to CAPS and its quite broad. Perhaps through a more collaborative and CAPS specific approach in which students could explain their needs and concerns, CAPS could be formed into a more effective and inclusive student resource. One such solution could be a student board for mental health services though which could mediate discussion between students and the CAPS office. Overall, these changes would help to make CAPS a counseling service that works to truly support student mental health through such turbulent times.  ***

A Case for the Bi-National State: Pro Palestinian Advocacy Must Move Past the Spectre of Arab Nationalism

Since the Oslo Accords and the previous abandonment of Jordan’s claims on the West Bank, discussions about the Israel-Arab conflict have mainly involved the two-state solution as a path forward for peace. The Palestinian Authority (The current internationally recognised government that rules parts of the West Bank), and many Israeli politicians (including previous prime minister Yair Lapid), have seemingly embraced this proposal, carving up the region between the two states and establishing a “Palestinian state” on the West Bank and Gaza. This article seeks to analyse that proposal by contrasting it to that of a Jewish-Palestinian binational state, developing on the flaws of the twostate solution and the nationalistic rhetoric that underlines it and that stays at the root of much of the conflict that plagues the region.

Photo Credit: Amal Ali

As the current state of the region stands, the finalization of a two-state solution would involve two main demographic problems: Firstly, the disbandment of Israel's illegal settlements in the West Bank and the forced expulsion of the (approximately) half a million settlers from those areas. While some view this significant forced displacement of people as an act of historical justice (or a correction of a historical injustice) against the invading settlers, such reasoning should not obstruct the lives of many of these people who would have to go through forced displacement as a repaying of the crimes of those ancestors who first moved in the West Bank for militant purposes. While criticizing this potential outcome, with many highlighting the impracticality of Israel willingly forcing half a million of its citizens to abandon their houses and move out of the West Bank, it does not seem necessary to highlight that point as Israel has historically demonstrated a willingness to enforce such displacements as means to ensuring its security or out of fear of an alteration to Israel’s demographics as a Jewish State.

Additionally, on the potential granting of the right of Palestinian refugees and the global Palestinian diaspora to return to their lands. Away from the possible political unwillingness that might stem from the apprehension of both these issues,

our focus should be on the impracticality with which the twostate solution deals with both options, chiefly the Palestinian right of return. Indeed, it could be argued that the right of return would be fulfilled in the two-state solution. A closer look at the two options that would be provided to Palestinian refugees helps showcase the futility of such a proposal. Indeed, it could be argued (and has been argued by previous Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak) that upon the formation of an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank, the return of Palestinian refugees could be facilitated by the Palestinian authorities in the newly sovereign land. However, this dismisses a central demand behind the right of return, which is the return of the Palestinian diaspora to the land they previously lived in. Implying the fulfilment of the right of return through their resettlement in the areas of a future Palestinian state is as vicious as it is futile considering a large proportion of the Palestinian diaspora already live in the land of historical Palestine as refugees without that condition fulfilling their need to return to the land they previously inhabited.

As such, the current situation of the Palestinian conflict can be described as a struggle to compromise on the compromise from the standpoint of Palestinian authorities and militant movements.

Unhappy to have lost the vast majority of the land they call home, Palestinians have been locked through the illusion of the two-state solution in a position where the legitimate representation of their voice is aimlessly attempting to secure more than the meager 16% of the West Bank given to the PA through the Oslo Accords. This in turn serves as a distraction that achieves the goal of taking out of the conversation any potential challenges to Israel’s existence as a Jewish-state chief among which is the Palestinian right of return and other “demographic challenges” that the two-state solution delegates to the future Palestinian state. With this, in mind, one might wonder why such a proposal has become the de facto implication for the IsraeliPalestinian peace process garnering wide acceptance even among progressive circles. The answer to this lies mainly in the nature of the initial division of the conflict that erased Palestinians as political actors to be negotiated with and turned the conflict into one of both sides (Arab states vs Israel). As Palestinian actors such as the PLO were given formal recognition by the United Nations as representatives of the Palestinian voice and as neighbouring Arab countries (Egypt under Saddat and Jordan) made peace with Israel, the same dichotomous view of the conflict stuck with the two “sides” shifting to Israel vs. Palestinians with the resolution of such conflict taking an equally binary nature:

that is, straying away from any peace option that does not ensure the continued existence of both sides would be seen as radical and potentially hateful or bigoted. And yet, it does not have to be that way, and historically has not always been the case. Indeed, with the start of the movement for Jewish selfemancipation (early Zionism), many prominent Jewish thinkers actively called for the native Palestinian population to be treated with respect, not to be expelled and (for some) to be given an equal share of the power on any state-project that would come out of a successful return of parts of the Jewish diaspora to the Land of Israel. This early support for Arab-Jewish binationalism can be seen in the writings of Ahad Ha’am (the founder of cultural Zionism), Moses Hess (Jewish socialist writer and one of the fathers of labour Zionism) and Henrietta Szold (founder of the Women’s Zionist organisation of America), with the latter two explicitly calling for a binational state (or commonwealth in the words of Hess) to be the final outcome of the Zionist project rather than the more colonial approach that ended up dominating following the establishment of the first Zionist congress.

Beyond this initial ideological support, binationalism rests on stronger historical justifications than the Israeli or Palestinian national myths that serve as ideological fuel to both these nationalistic streams.

Indeed, it is hard to deny the historical presence of either Arabs or Jews in the area and their historical connection to the land, a connection that, contrary to popular myths, has not consisted of one people living in the area alone until their eventual replacement by the other (be it the idea that Jews’ connection to Palestine was interrupted by the Roman exile, and that the Arab connection to the land only extends to the period following the Islamic conquests). Indeed, Jewish presence in the area extends far beyond the exile and massacres ordered by Hadrian or the earlier exile following Titus’ destruction of the temple. Jews from Palestine would continue prospering in their homeland (albeit under foreign domination) for centuries to come, leading to influential writings that impacted global Jewish thought such as the compilation of the Masoretic text in Tiberias. Comparatively Arab presence in the area has not started with the Islamic conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire, as the historical and archaeological record bears witness to Arabic writings in Nabatean, Safaitic and Edomite script around the areas of modernday southern Israel which was home to a settled Arabic tribe since the Persian era.

Anecdotally, the kingdom of Judea came to be ruled by King Herod, who himself was born to an Arab mother and an Edomite father (ethnicity unknown, either Canaanite or Arab).

‘Aliyah itself, far from being a modern creation as some may come to think, has been a religious endeavor for centuries, often revitalizing the Jewish community back in Palestine and offering new influential works such as the works of Nachmanides and Isaac Luria.

The land of Palestine/Israel is the homeland of multiple peoples and religious groups and if there is a great historical injustice to be fixed, it is that which has led most of the inhabitants of the area to exile at a scale only matched by the ethnic cleansings of Hadrian and Nebuchadnezzar 2. Indeed, if one is to make a nationalistic argument on the connection of a people to their land, then the necessary outcome of such reflection must be the ability of both the global Jewish diaspora and the Palestinian Diaspora to return to their homeland and build a life there under the control of a state aimed at representing both their interests and allowing for peaceful cohabitation and the cultural miscegenation that would result from that. Now, I acknowledge that many might call bi-nationalism a wishful dream, and yet the dream is not bi-nationalism as a final outcome, which despite presenting us with solutions to the diaspora problem leaves many questions such as the faith of non-Levantine migrants to the area such as Eritreans unanswered.

If the world was to be just, nationalism would be done away with, and yet with an understanding of the limitations that realism and political pragmatism put on us, binationalism presents itself as the justest option, contrasting itself to the alternatives of apartheid or the bantustans.

***

Selective Humanitarianism: How the Conflict in Ukraine Has Exposed Western Racism and Hypocrisy

At this point in 2022, it’s hard to imagine someone who has not seen the chaos taking place in Ukraine after Russia invaded earlier this year. Even if there are people who haven’t seen digital footage of the war, the interdependent nature of the global economy means that the repercussions of this war have reverberated worldwide. Media headlines emphasized how shocking the wreckage of once booming and busy cities like Kyiv were:

CBS News journalist Charlie D’Agata said of the war, “This isn’t a place, with all due respect, you know, like Iraq or Afghanistan that has seen conflict raging for decades. You know, this is a relatively civilized, relatively European… city where you wouldn’t expect that or hope that it’s going to happen.”

Photo Credit: Pexel

An ITV journalist from Poland said, “Now the unthinkable has happened to them. And this is not a developing, third world nation. This is Europe!”

A journalist from Al Jazeera said, “Looking at them, the way they are dressed, these are prosperous… I’m loath to use the expression… middle-class people. These are not obviously refugees looking to get away from areas in the Middle East that are still in a big state of war.”

Daniel Hannan from The Telegraph said, “They seem so like us. That is what makes it so shocking. Ukraine is a European country. Its people watch Netflix and have Instagram accounts, vote in free elections and read uncensored newspapers. War is no longer something visited upon impoverished and remote populations.”

These quotes are just a few of the biased perspectives media sources have taken on this current conflict. Many countries, such as Syria, have been embroiled in devastating war for years, and yet Syria does not garner the same media coverage as the war in Ukraine. What’s more, it seems like the Syrian people do not even garner the same sorrow as their white counterparts in Europe. If the civilians of Syria and Ukraine are both caught in the middle of war that they cannot escape, why is it that the West has more compassion for Ukrainians?

Why were countries quick to welcome Ukrainians into their borders, but turn their backs on Syrians seeking refuge in new states? Why did news networks consider war more devastating and catastrophic for Ukrainians, yet took this reality for granted when thinking of those trapped in war zones in the Middle East? Shouldn’t there be sympathy for everyone stuck in wartorn countries? This article seeks to compare the Western reaction to the current wars in Ukraine and Syria.

Firstly, it may be helpful to give context for each of these wars. In recent years, Russian president Vladimir Putin has become increasingly emboldened in his nationalist rhetoric, going so far as saying Ukrainians are Russians, and thus need to be united as one state. His decisions to invade Crimea in 2014 resulted in a mostly indifferent and scarce response from the global community, ultimately culminating in the February invasion of Ukraine in the name of Russian nationalism.

The early 2010s saw the beginning of the Arab Spring: Arab citizens were tired of the rampant corruption as well as the limited economic opportunities in their countries and thus began to push back against their governments. In 2011, Syrian youth took to the streets of Deraa to peacefully protest in favor of political freedom but were met with violence. These protests escalated quickly into a violent civil war with everyone taking sides—the government versus pro-democracy groups determined to topple the regime. 46

Eventually, non-state actors, like terrorist organizations and the Kurd ethnic group, got involved as well, making this war even more complicated and chaotic.

It's evident that although both the people of Syria and Ukraine are amidst a disastrous war, one group is deemed more worthy of compassion for their misfortune. Both countries are war torn, but the world was more shocked and ready to help when Ukraine was invaded. Aside from the incredibly racist and demeaning news headlines, many nations declared that they were opening their borders to Ukrainian refugees.

In February 2022, the Bulgarian Prime Minister at the time said, “These are not the refugees we are used to… these people are Europeans. These people are intelligent, they are educated people… This is not the refugee wave we have been used to.”

The European Union demonstrated yet another example of disappointing and biased treatment of refugees: In March 2022, the EU enabled the “ Temporary Protection Directive” which ‘grants residence, healthcare, and the right to work or study… for a year and up to three years.’

Unsurprisingly, Syrian refugees were not shown this compassion at any time during their ongoing civil war, not even when the refugee crisis was at its worst in 2015.

What’s so disheartening about the treatment of Syrian and non-white refugees is its humanity and lack of empathy. One would hope that in the present-day, the right to survival is not determined based on the color of one’s skin, one’s ethnicity, or one’s nationality. And yet, Syrian refugees are deemed unworthy of pity, sympathy, or support despite having no control in their unfortunate circumstances.

NPR reported on Syrian journalist Okba Mohammed, who reflected on his own departure from Daraa, Syria in 2018: “Mohammed described a sense of déjà vu as he followed events in Ukraine. Like thousands of Ukrainians, he also had to shelter underground to protect himself from Russian bombs. He also struggled to board an overcrowded bus to flee his town. He also was separated from his family at the border.” Mohammed himself said, “A refugee is a refugee, whether European, African, or Asian.”

Fortunately, many have been calling attention to the hypocrisy of Western media and governments for their treatment of Ukrainians compared to other refugee groups. Jeff Crisp, previous director of policy, development, and evaluation at the UN Refugee Agency said, “Countries that had been really negative on the refugee issue and have made it very difficult for the EU to develop coherent refugee policy over the last decade, suddenly come forward with a much more positive response.”

It's certainly relieving and applaudable that Western countries have denounced Putin’s aggression and the unfair devastation and chaos that Ukrainians must face as war rips apart their country. However, it is painful to see that this sympathy and compassion for warafflicted civilians only came when those in danger were white. The Syrian civil war rages on after over a decade, and yet there is hardly the same media attention nor welcoming arms from countries around the world. Rather, many Syrians continue to suffer even once they have fled their homes.

Rasha al-Ahmed, a mother of three, initially fled Syria in 2017 for Turkey. Shortly after arriving in Turkey, she left for Greece with her husband and children, hoping for more economic opportunities than in Turkey. Upon arriving on the Greek island Lesbos, she learned they would not be allowed to move to mainland Greece until her application for asylum was accepted. The Greek police took alAhmed and her family to a camp where refugees were subject to inhumane conditions: “Trash lined every corridor. The overwhelming stench of rotting garbage, urine, and feces made them want to vomit. The few toilets overflowed with human waste. Women shared tents with unrelated men. She [Ahmed] heard people screaming in food lines and watched fights break out. She looked up and saw razor-wire fencing.” At the time, al-Ahmed thought, “Europe does not see us as human.”

Unfortunately, al-Ahmed’s story is a sad but common one. Europe did not want the influx of Syrian refugees. Donald Tusk, the European Commission President at the time said, “Do not come to Europe. Do not believe the smugglers. Do not risk your lives and your money. It is all for nothing.”

While there has been somewhat of a spotlight on the double-standard of the West—with headlines calling out the bias from news sources like CNN, the LA Times, and the Washington Post—it is not enough. Syrians and many other nonwhite refugees continue to suffer around the world, and yet their suffering falls on deaf and indifferent ears. People need to be more conscious of how desensitized they are to suffering in Africa and the Middle East and question what institutions are in place that normalize the distress of nonwhite people. ***

How TikTok Reinforces and Creates a Platform for Aesthetic Cultural Appropriation

TikTok has quickly become one of the most popular contemporary social media platforms, a fact most likely attributed to the design of its algorithm that allows users to view hundreds of entertaining and engaging videos in mere minutes. However, it is precisely the style of this high paced, absorbing algorithm that creates a platform for aesthetic cultural appropriation.

Aesthetic cultural appropriation refers to the unacknowledged adoption of customs and ideals by one peoples, usually those dominant in society, and is commonplace within Tiktok where trends are fastpaced, short-lived, and able to be monetized.

Most recently these trends have included “Hailey Bieber Lips,” also referred to as “Brownie Glazed Lips,” and “Henna Freckles,” both of which were initially done by minority communities but remain thpe popularized trend of the majority. This intrinsically promotes the erroneous notion that cultural traditions and practices of minorities are more socially acceptable when westernized. Additionally, this encourages the prevalence of appropriative practices, particularly within Tik Tok.

Photo Credit: Pexel

Hailey Bieber Lips

“Brownie Glazed Lips” is the name given to the makeup practice of using a brown or black eye or lip liner to outline one's lips before applying a clear gloss on top. Though Hailey Bieber along with her legions of fans have recently adopted the style, historically, the look has been practiced by Black and Latina women beginning in the early ‘80’s and ‘90’s. The makeup look was featured in Bieber’s “ready for all the fall things including brownie glazed lips” TikTok, as well as in a similarly titled video “the lip combo I’m feeling for fall.” Though Bieber never explicitly claimed to ‘invent’ the “lip combo,” the name given to the ‘new’ makeup trend suggests the opposite and, understandably, both Black and Latina TikTok users were frustrated at the situation. They used the comment section to display these intense emotions: “someone give her a tutorial,” “our tias are laughing,” “we did this back in the 90’s when I was in the ninth grade,” and “Latina core,” are just a few of the comments left under Bieber’s video.

Though, as previously mentioned, Bieber is seemingly revered as the originator of the “lip combo,” most of the backlash over the trend is derived not from Bieber’s employment of the makeup look, but of the employment of the look by her largely white audience.

As opposed to the connotation that the trend was “ghetto” or “ratchet” when worn by women of color, suddenly, when adopted by women with more eurocentric features, the trend is the “ next big fall makeup trend.” It is this double standard that women of color are disheartened by, and the fact that it's a continual occurrence.

Henna Freckles

Women of South Asian descent found themselves the victim of cultural appropriation this year as well when white individuals began to adopt the use of henna, a herbal dye used to create semi-permanent body art, to give themselves freckles. Like Black and Latina women who are deemed “ghetto” and “ratchet” for the lip combo they chose to wear, South Asian women are often referred to using derogatory and disturbing rhetoric when sporting traditional henna designs. Ome Khan, a Pakistani- American woman revealed in an interview with Insider that, as a child, she was called “poop hands” and “poop feet” when she came to school wearing henna. However, white women who adopt the henna trend now are devoid of this ridicule. They are allowed to enjoy the traditional culture of South Asian women, they are allowed to enjoy henna, they are allowed to enjoy chai, they are allowed to enjoy yoga without any of the negative connotations associated with these practices.

Collaborative Filtering

White individuals frequently and routinely both overuse and ignore the cultural value and legacies of various ethnic and cultural groups, and TikTok presents them a platform to maintain these behaviors by building on the pre-existing imbalance of power that exists between women of color and their white counterparts through their algorithm. Constrained by not only race but gender as well, women of color lack popularity on TikTok’s platform despite the majority of trends originating from these individuals, a fact that is directly attributed to the practice of collaborative filtering.

Collaborative filtering refers to TikTok’s algorithm which relies heavily on an individual's physical characteristics to suggest recommendations. For example, if a user likes a video of a white woman with short blonde hair and blue eyes, TikTok will prioritize displaying individuals who are phenotypically similar to that particular user. Considering a majority of the platform's users reflect this previously mentioned identity, POC users are less likely to receive popularity due to a lack of  visibility and less likely to be given credit for any trend they might start. Of course, this phenomenon is discernible, not only on the platform of TikTok, but in society as well, as there has always existed a fixation on Eurocentric features by the U.S.

Eurocentrism refers to the widely embraced ideology “or set of empirical beliefs that frame Europe as the primary engine and architect of the world.” These ideologies and beliefs ultimately created and sustained the notion of white superiority or supremacy that emerged during the beginning of the slavery era- justifying violent and inequitable treatment of people of color- and which continues to characterize the U.S today. As a consequence of the environment these ideals created, individuals of color were notably viewed as “less than,” a narrative that translated into these individuals’ perceived beauty as well. Today, women of color like those affected by Hailey Bieber’s “lip combo” trend as well as that of the “Henna Freckles” trend find themselves seemingly desensitized and increasingly nonchalant at the appropriation of their culture particularly by white individuals. Taija Reed, a thirty-three year old content creator from Missouri confirms this conclusion, arguing that the appropriation of their cultural practices by white individuals “is a rite of passage for Black and brown women,” and this appropriation will continuously be perceived as “a rite of passage” unless instigators like TikTok advocate for a drastic change in the way their platform operates.

Pursuing Change

There have been both large-scale and small-scale efforts to combat the inherent discrimination present within TikTok’s foundation. However, each of them has ultimately been unsuccessful due to social media protections in place that provide a sort of ‘immunity’ to reform efforts regarding the platform’s algorithmic method. Unfortunately, this realistically places reform in the hands of privileged white creators who benefit the most from this system as well as TikTok, the perpetrators of the system themselves. Both of these entities must not only be urged to question and dispute the ethics behind TikTok’s racially-based algorithm, but to actively educate their majority white followers to prevent the appropriation of the culture of these minority and marginalized groups. Additionally, transitioning from a race-based algorithmic system to one that is focused more heavily on content rather than appearance and specifically promotes the pages of minority individuals, would be a beneficial advancement in both pursuing this education of white individuals as well as dismantling a practice that ultimately disadvantages a select group of peoples. ***

The Rise of Antisemitism on American College Campuses

In September of 2022, the United States Department of Education launched an investigation into the University of Vermont after multiple students filed reports of antisemitism on campus that the University of Vermont failed to properly address or investigate. On September 21, 2021, a group of University of Vermont students threw rocks  at the windows of the campus Hillel building for forty minutes.

Furthermore, the students throwing rocks asked a student who opened a window if they were Jewish. During the 2021-2022 academic year, a University of Vermont teaching assistant used her position to “marginalize and ostracize” her Jewish students and threatened to lower their grades if they identified as being Zionists. Multiple students in the class also reported that the teaching assistant made “antisemitic remarks”

and created an environment where they were fearful to identify as Jewish, regardless of their beliefs regarding Israel.

On May 12, 2021, a University of Vermont club called “Share Your Story UVM” posted on their social media platforms that students who identified as Zionists were no longer welcome in the club.  While Zionism does not necessarily connote Judaism, one former student that I interviewed, who has asked to remain anonymous, stated that Christian Zionists were not blocked by the organization while Jewish students that had never expressed opinions on Israel or Zionism were. While the difference may have been about lapses in the ability to identify students, it left many Jewish students feeling fearful and targeted for their religion. Anti-Zionism is not the same as antisemitism, but care must be taken to ensure that antiZionist policies are not only enforced toward Jewish students.

The University of Vermont is only one school, but it is a microcosm of the rising number of anti-semitic attacks on college campuses around the country. For example, in September 2022, flyers were distributed around the University of Michigan campus claiming that Covid-19 and the Russia-Ukraine war are the fault of Jews. The flyers also included the names of all the Jews working in high-ranking positions at the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the United States Government.

On September 26, 2022, Alpha Epsilon

Pi (AEPi), a Jewish fraternity, had their house egged during Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year and one of the holiest days of the year for Jews. The same fraternity house had been egged on Holocaust Remembrance Day in April of 2022. Thousands of additional antisemitic incidents are also recorded by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

The Anti-Defamation League, an organization that focuses on antisemitism across the world and keeping accurate data on antisemitism, found that 2021 had the highest number of antisemitic incidents recorded in America since the organization’s inception in 1913.  Between 2020 and 2021, there was a 34% increase in antisemitic incidents, with indicators showing that the rise in antisemitism will continue. In K-12 schools, the number of antisemitic incidents from 2020 to 2021 rose by 106% while incidents on college campuses rose by 21%. All statistics show that antisemitism and antisemetic incidents are on the rise in educational facilities. However, colleges face a unique challenge in addressing these issues. Whereas public elementary, middle, and high schools are heavily regulated by local governments that can address local issues, private colleges are able to get away with not addressing antisemitism due to a lack of similar oversight. School districts are overseen by a board directly responsible for that district, the city government, the state government, and the federal government. Such extensive oversight prevents incidents from going unaddressed. 54

However, state and federal governments are looking at both the public primary schools and the higher education facilities. Due to the large number of institutions being managed by the state and federal government, more incidents are able to go unaddressed because there is simply not enough personnel available to address the issue.

In addition to a rise in personal attacks on Jews, there have also been a rise in attacks on Jewish facilities on college campuses. In August of 2022, University of Southern California’s Hillel building was vandalized and had rocks thrown at it, which broke several windows and caused damage to the building. In May of 2021, Harvard’s Hillel facility was vandalized twice. In October 2022, three individuals at Miami University vandalized and flipped over Hillel’s sukkah, a shelter erected during the Jewish holiday of Sukkot.

The sheer number of results when you simply google “Antisemitism incidents” can be overwhelming with over seven million results in less than one second. Such articles are important as they make sure the public is aware of antisemitic acts that are being committed, but while it’s important to be educated, it’s also essential to take action. Colleges are meant to be sanctuaries of higher education.

However, no student can be expected to perform their best when they are facing constant intimidation, hatred, and sometimes even violent actions from peers at a school that refuses to defend its students.

To be clear, everyone has the right to freedom of speech. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. However, issues arise when people do not understand that their words can have consequences. Issues come up when people use language that incites violence towards others or impacts the quality of life of others. It is also important to provide education and regulations for all on campus clubs to ensure that they are aware of the difficulties that all minorities and religions face on college campuses so as to create a more inclusive community. Another important step is making an active effort to separate your opinion of an individual or a country or anything similar, from the actual religion or nationality. For example, it is unfair for someone from Canada to dislike Donald Trump and therefore decide that all Americans or all Christians are bad. Similarly, it is unfair for someone to dislike Israel’s prime minister or an action taken by a country and decide that therefore all Israelis or all Jews are bad people. The lack of distinction made between a leader or public figure and the groups that they happen to be a part of is incredibly damaging and potentially dangerous.

Finally, speaking up makes a world of difference. The reality is that Jews make up only a small percentage of the world. If the greater public commits themselves to speaking up when there is antisemitism, a large impact can be made. History has shown that hateful rhetoric can spiral, but now is the time to speak up, stand up, and fight antisemitism.

***

Editor’s Note: This article has undergone revision for clarity. (December 2022)

Contributors

Editor’s Note: To protect privacy, ensure freedom of speech, and emphasize our collective unity regarding the issues we write about, Counterculture does not use bylines in individual articles, instead including a contributors list at the end of each issue.

Writers

Omar Aalabbou Amal Ali

Grace Brogan Sogona Cisse Lily Dubrovich Sydney Dwyer Abby Green Maddie Fellner Myanna Hightower Timothy Khoh Samuel Ogden Cover Design Team Sumaya Fawaz Grace Brogan Amal Ali

Cover Photo Credits

Ethan Swift, The Collegian Amal Ali

Executive Board Founder and Editor in Chief Christian Herald Managing Editor Amal Ali Editorial Board

Ashley Anderson Sogona Cisse Maddie Fellner Social Media Manager Catherine “Cady” Cummins