News: Your ballot guide for the 2024 elections in University Circle (pg. 2)
The Case Western Reserve
Observer
Friday, November 1, 2024 Volume LVI, Issue 10 Est. 1969
NEWS
Law students pass divestment bill through Student Bar Association Shejuti Wahed Social Media Content Creator
The Law Students for Justice in Palestine (LSJP) presented a bill calling for disclosure and divestment from “companies complicit in the violence against Palestinians” twice this year, most recently to the Case Western Reserve University Law Student Bar Association (SBA) in September. Any student in the CWRU School of Law was eligible to vote from Sept. 25-29. Results released the following day showed 198 out of 629 students in the law student body (31.5%) participated in the election. The bill passed with 68% (135 votes) in favor and 32% (63) not in favor. The passage of this bill was not without roadblocks—LSJP had proposed the bill to SBA in February, after which the SBA Executive Board blocked the bill from Senate floor discussion. LSJP stated, “We discovered that the university’s general counsel had informed SBA executives that the
bill violated Ohio’s anti-boycott law. We disagree and would note that our members have routinely witnessed the Office of General Counsel’s bias for Zionist causes and overt surveillance of the anti-Zionist movement on campus.” The fall semester’s new SBA Executive Board agreed to present the bill and facilitate a full student body vote in September. During the voting period, LSJP had a meeting with the Office of Student Conduct that presented many restrictions regarding the language they could use on social media. In particular, part of the summary email they received from the Office of Student Conduct said, “‘From the river to the sea’ has been determined by the University to be intimidating and/ or threatening, and is therefore not permitted in any form.” They specified that this includes “electronic, verbal, or written communications of any format,” and their reasoning was based on “receiving concerns from members of the University community.”
LSJP views the banning of the usage of this phrase during the voting period to be a “one of the most explicit and unconstitutional attempts by the university to restrict students’ freedom of speech.” By banning the usage of this “critical mobilizing and unifying phrase,” they claim that this “reveals how vehemently antiPalestinian this administration has become and how committed it is to use word bans to intimidate and chill Palestinian advocacy and speech on campus.” Professor Raymond Ku of the School of Law commented on the banning of this phrase. He said, “The University’s absolute prohibition fails to distinguish between true threats directed at an audience to instill fear in the targeted audience as opposed to speech directed more generally or even to different audiences that make some members of the community uncomfortable and/or afraid.” In the past, LSJP had also presented this resolution to the Graduate Student Council (GSC). This also
passed over a Zoom General Assembly in May, moved from its previously scheduled location in Adelbert Hall. The resolution passed by simple majority, with 28 “yays,” two “nays,” four “abstains” and 11 “no votes.” “This Resolution is in agreement and solidarity with Resolution 31-15, CWRU Undergraduate Student Government’s divestment resolution, passed in November of 2022,” the GSC Executive Board stated in their newsletter. The SBA resolution was passed through a direct referendum by the student body, while the GSC and Undergraduate Student Government resolutions were voted on by the elected student representatives. This distinction is significant because a direct referendum involves the entire student body in the decision-making process, and their opinions are thus more directly reflected. Per university comment, the university has no plans to respond to the resolution passed by the SBA. Dean Paul Rose of the School of Law also had no response.
CLIMATE ACTION CONTEST
[1st Place] Legacy of resilience: How my ancestors inspire a greener tomorrow Alessandro d’Amico Contributing Writer
I often think of how my great-greatgrandmother Maria must have felt trying on shoes for the first time at age eleven. I think of how her daughter Rina must have felt when her husband abandoned her shortly after the birth of my grandmother, leaving her with two kids and no clear way forward in Italy during the aftermath of World War II. I think of the struggle my whole family went through to raise my grandmother Graziella and my great-aunt Carla. I think of Graziella’s husband of fifty years—my grandfather Romano— who vividly remembered his older sister grabbing his hand and begging him to run faster, bomb sirens wailing overhead, until the day he died. These stories scare the deepest parts of my soul. I don’t want to live like my Graziella’s grandfather, Tommaso, who owned a small charcoal shop in a village in Italy, doing back-breaking work from morning to night. My family has persevered through great difficulties for hundreds of years under Italy’s sharecropping system, called “mezzadria.” Even after being freed from the shackles of this archaic feudal system, they were thrown into the woes of World War II. In 80 short years, my family came to the U.S. and turned their life around. Most families change and forget, but my family chose to change and remember, and this gives me something to fight for. So, with the understanding that modernity brings opportunity comes the desire to ensure that this opportunity exists for those who will come af-
ter me, whether they are related to me or not. It would break my heart if my five-year-old cousin had to spend the final third of her life living in a postapocalyptic hellscape. With this desire to fight comes an optimistic vision of the future revolving around innovation, adoption and social change. Innovation has repeatedly changed the way people live, and it will do so again. In the last 100 years, technology has developed to vastly improve people’s lives. Eighty years ago, U.S. scientists created the first self-sustaining nuclear reaction, paving the way for nuclear power, which today provides the world with cheap, safe and green electricity. Ninety years ago, polyethylene plastic was synthesized for industrial use, setting the stage for the modern plastic-based economy. Today’s scientific and engineering challenges such as genome editing, industrial-scale nanomaterials and fusion energy currently seem unsolvable but will be more realistic with every passing decade. By understanding that humanity does not need all the solutions right now, pessimism about the current state of things may be replaced with hope for the future. Technology adoption is crucial to a green transition. A lot of energyhungry countries like the U.S., China, India and Indonesia all use significant amounts of coal despite the availability of greener options, such as nuclear, or cheaper options, such as geothermal. State-of-the-art technologies like biodegradable plastics, modern heat insulation and heat pumps promise to deliver results as soon as they are employed. These technologies could make an impact today but need to be deployed at a large scale to be able to do
so. Social change is required to reach a future where people can emit zero net greenhouse gasses. Reduction in consumption will alleviate many pressing problems, from e-waste to plastics, but requires a fundamental change in the way societies across the globe view consumption. A change that will have a very strong impact, for example, is allowing more electronic devices to have replaceable batteries. Most cell phones and laptops have their battery as their first component of failure. Despite this, most people replace a phone when it gets old and stops working, instead of investigating the source of the issue and replacing the battery if needed. Therefore, the question is not why I’m fighting but why you’re pessimistic about the future. When people feel powerless and don’t take action,
they give up all their agency and let bad actors have their way. By understanding that the future need not be gloomy, we can shape the future to best fit our idyllic vision. To reach the point of net zero, it is important that environmentalists understand that giving up is the single most selfish thing they could do. Had any of my family members thrown their arms in the air and given up, then I would not have been here today, and if I give up, I am effectively reducing the quality of life of the people after me, like my baby cousin. Climate change is an ever-more pressing issue, and it therefore demands more people to care, not fewer. We need to fight to preserve the quality of life we’ve gained over the past 100 years and must strive to do so in the most environmentallyfriendly manner possible.
Tyler Vu/The Observer