The Emory Wheel
Editorials
On the surface, the upcoming proposal to separate the graduate schools from the Student Government Association (SGA) seems unnecessary. Since its founding, SGA represented Emory’s graduate students with an internal branch that had its own elected representatives and governed alongside undergraduate representatives. According to SGA President Max Zoberman, this is “not a new issue.” Graduate students believe this system has never been equal and needs in leadership. Currently, the Graduate Student Government Association (GSGA) is under the Student Government Association (SGA), meaning that the GSGA president has less power and opportunity than the SGA president, not to mention that more SGA legislator positions are reserved for undergraduates than for graduate students . This is the only prompt that brought about the proposed referendum. The Editorial Board initially had reservations about endorsing this referendum, but after conversations with the members of the leadership of SGA,, we the Editorial Board of The Emory Wheel endorse this proposal and believe it will create the necessary structure to cater to the differing needs of undergraduate and graduate students. At Emory, like most universities, the graduate and professional school experience is fundamentally different. Graduate students do not usually live on campus. Their priorities are drastically different from undergraduates. GSGA once proposed the creation of a daycare on campus; undergraduate representatives could not understand why such a plan would be necessary to fund. For a person with a family, this could be the difference between being able to pursue graduate studies and not. The age difference can (and will) determine how distinct students utilize their student government. Postgraduates and undergraduates need separate associations to cater to their respective needs. Furthermore, the executive branch of SGA was never equipped to handle issues unique to graduate students. Undergraduates have historically had majority representation in SGA Undergraduates tend to support other undergraduates while postgraduates tend to be apathetic towards or too busy to work on student government, resulting in fewer postgraduate members running. Not only do undergraduates
Over the course of the past election, President Trump faced multiple sexual assault claims and marital rape allegations. He was caught bragging about committing sexual assault and claiming that “all women are bimbos.” Trump’s businesses were investigated for racial discrimination, and he made multiple racist remarks against Muslims and other minorities. This past Saturday over 147,000 protesters gathered for the Women’s March in Washington; thousands more gathered at sister protests around the country and the world to oppose Trump’s questionable attitude toward and treatment of women. The protest was one of the largest in American history, drawing far more supporters than the inauguration of President Donald Trump the day before. The Women’s March was not only a success for American women, but for women worldwide, it showed that many Americans do not support Trump’s stance on women’s rights. It also communicated a strong message that President Trump’s disrespectful attitude toward marginalized groups, personal liberties and freedom of speech is opposed by millions ties and rights. News coverage of the march was generally positive, but backlash and criticism were quick to surface. The March was strongly criticized by New York Times columnist David Brooks for overemphasizing women’s reproductive rights over less contentious issues. The critique of the march is not entirely warranted, and misses a crucial point — women’s reproductive rights are not only important for women, but society as a whole. Support for women’s healthcare includes important issues
compose the majority of the legislature, the executive branch “never [had] a graduate student at the top of SGA,” according to William Palmer, SGA Governance Committee chair. This is a structural inequality that requires large-scale constitutional and structural reform or the current, simpler solution — a complete split of the graduate and undergraduate student government associations into independent bodies. Emory’s current structure is unique among its peer universities. Many institutions including Vanderbilt, Georgia Tech, UPenn and Georgetown have separate governing bodies for graduate and undergraduate students. Initially, we had concerns with technical parts of the transition, such as how university-wide organization (UWO) evaluations would be handled between the two different associations. According to SGA, UWO evaluations will be handled by the proposed Joint Governance Committee (JGC) of executive representatives from both the graduate and undergraduate schools if the referendum were to pass. The JGC is an effective solution to handling issues that require consideration from both graduate and undergraduate students. Another concern is the unusual structure of the current SGA. The Student Programming Council (SPC) is an executive agency established beneath the President of SGA. Organizations such as SPC can potentially lose funding due to the upcoming UWO evaluation: if the referendum passes, there is a higher chance that more organizations will not be considered university-wide. Ria Sabnis, the president of SPC, currently represents a UWO that could lose funding. Regardless, she supports this referendum as a member of SGA and does not acknowledge that her stance is not in SPC’s interest. It is our opinion that a representative of a divisional council or executive agency should not prioritize the interests of SGA over their own agency. This is unacceptable and requires further insight as to how SGA itself is structured. In the long run, the Editorial Board believes this referendum will create a useful separation and resolve issues currently affecting graduate students. Over the years, this issue has been revisited to exhaustion. The creation of a separate Graduate Student Government Association is the only clear-cut solution to a perennial problem.
besides abortion. Access to reproductive health care, birth control and education, for example, are causes that need support from women and politicians across party and religious lines. Despite these praises for the protest, the protest failed to be inclusive of the range of abortion after the removal of a pro-life group of registered participants. The protest’s “Unity Principles” championed “open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion.” It is imperative that women who believe in equality come together gardless of their stance on abortion. The March’s focus on reproductive rights for the rights and fair treatment of all women, including transgender women and minorities. Though Trump carried 42 percent of the women’s vote nationally this past election, the Women’s March was a strong rebuttal to Trump’s offensive attitudes toward women displayed during the election. In the face of political upheaval around the world, this peaceful protest was a victory for conscious and active citizenship. The March’s ideals and successes should certainly be applauded, but if women aim to action throughout Trump’s presidency is necessary. The Women’s March should serve as a catalyst for continuous dialogue and as a call to action for all Americans. After winning an election on a populist campaign, public support is Trump’s strongest ally and his greatest liability. This march showed the world that millions of Americans do not support Donald Trump or his policies.
The Editorial Board is comprised of Anthony Chau, Annie Cohen, Duncan Cock Foster, Zachary Issenberg, Jennifer Katz, Josh Khalif, Madeline Lutwyche, Shemlah Naphish, Boris Niyonzima and Tarrek Shaban.
Dania Quezada I have a name, though some Americans simply think of me as illegal. Their frustration with the nation’s current state of affairs means they are willing to strip their fellow humans of their names and decry their entire existence as immoral. Is there merit to this act? Do we truly believe that the immigrant with the money and time to secure lawful immigration is good while the immigrant who did not is bad? Do morality and justice align perfectly with the law? Americans should ponder these questions and recognize that an issue as complex as that of immigration should never be considered in black and white terms. The moral implications of this simplistic perception of immigration must be considered if justice has any hope of guiding the lawful treatment of immigrants in America. The United States is in urgent need of comprehensive immigration reform; this cannot be disputed. For those who lust for power, though, the issue of immigration allows for a golden opportunity to incite the passion of the masses by preying on their insecurities. The narrative of the violent illegal is particularly successful because it targets many Americans’ anxieties regarding foreign forces inway of life. Those propagating the idea that undocumented immigrants are base creatures need only present them as such and thus offer an answer to the grievances of desperate Americans. One does not need to reach too ple of such a strategy. In his presidential announcement speech, Donald Trump’s introductory assurance that “our country is in serious trouble” immediately established the dystopian image of ransacked America upon which his presidential platform is built. According to Trump, a large part of the problem is that Mexico and the rest of Latin America “[send] people that have lots of problems” — drugs, crime and a propensity for raping. The image is graphic and provides a villainous face at which the people may focus their resentment and fear. against the image of the violent immigrant by describing how Mexico “takes a company” originally planned for Tennessee and “rips it out” for itself. The violent language compliments the image of the Mexican immigrant — in this case a job thief — which Trump carefully established. Its effect is profound; Trump scratched at the wounds of the American people and set the stage for his most pow-
erful image: America as its citizens’ promised land. The American dream promises that hardworking citizens prosper in this country; however, something is terribly, terribly wrong. Americans swear they have kept their side of the bargain through their willingness to work, but they are not receiving their dues as tradition states they ought. Is the immigrant to blame? Is the answer so simple? Or is the answer perhaps multifaceted, involving an economic and political system that allows for American companies to take advantage of low-cost country sourcing? Can it be that Latin-American immigrants are truly violent criminals? Or is it more likely that the actions of a few were brought to the forepolitical agenda in an effort to dehumanize and vilify the many? Regardless of the truth, Trump assures his supporters that politicians have failed to lead them to success, promising in his speech that “they will not bring us … to the promised land.” It is easy to feel entitled to a comfortable life, and even easier to trim the edges of truth and arrange what little is left into a picture of the American citizen as a tragic hero wronged by the villainous immigrant. However, the consequences of considering issues such as immigration and its effects on the American people in simplistic, archetypal terms are far-reaching. Such thinking preys on our fear, allowing our prejudices to overcome our capacity for reasoning and making just decisions in regards to how we address the issue of immigration within the United States. As evidenced by his speech announcing his candidacy in 2015, Trump is a talented storyteller, presenting an image of America pillaged by immigrants that he alone can save. Are we prepared to renounce our reason and accept this image for the sake of convenience? What do we make of young immigrants like me who were brought to the country as children, long before we could consent to the act or reason about its consequences? In his speech, Trump reduces the entirety of our being into an expertly drawn caricature in an attempt to manipulate Americans into believing that immigrants stand in the way of them receiving their promised prosperity. I am not an image — no one is. I hope those who stand in neutrality regarding immigration will allow themselves to be guided by reason and compassion rather than fear and hatred when considering how our president addresses the issue of immigration in the next four years.
Dania Quezada is a College sophomore.