The Georgetown Voice, October 28, 2016

VOICE The Georgetown

October 28, 2016

Hoyas Weigh in on Election Page 8

Is Speech on Campus Free Enough?

Page 10

OCTOBER 28, 2016

2

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE Volume 49 • Issue 5

staff editor-in-chief Kevin Huggard Managing editor Graham piro news

executive editor Ryan miller Features editor Caitlyn cobb news editor lilah burke assistant news editors margaret gach, cassidy jensen, isaiah seibert “Left, Left, Left right left” by Megan howell

culture

Editorials

4

Carrying On: Musings of a College Conservative Graham Piro

5

contents

Hidden Hegemony: Being a Voice of Vested Interest Isaiah Fleming-Klink

6

Forging a Path: Learn to Trust Yourself Sabina Kayser

7

Students Share Their Thoughts on the Election and the Nation’s Political Climate Caitlyn Cobb and Kenneth Lee

8

Free Speech, with Restrictions Graham Piro

10

Little Movement Visible in Nike Negotiation Maddy Rice

12

Crash and Burn: Inferno Fails to Ignite Graham Piro Fugue Explore Memory, Identity, and the Secrets We Keep Anna Shuster Beautiful Reminders of a Frim Future Emily Jaster

editor@georgetownvoice.com Leavey 424 Box 571066 Georgetown University Washington, DC 20057

13

executive editor Brian Mcmahon Leisure editor michael bergin assistant leisure editors Amy guay, caitlin mannering, Devon O’Dwyer Sports editor robert ponce Assistant sports editors Tyler pearre, phillip steuber

opinion

Executive editor kenneth lee voices editor Lara Fishbane Editorial Board Chair Daniel Varghese Editorial Board Jon Block, Chris dunn, Kevin Huggard, kenneth lee, graham piro, ryan miller, PHillip Steuber

halftime

Leisure editor Danielle hewitt assistant leisure editors Dan sheehan, claire smith Sports editors Jonny Amon, Chris Dunn

design

Executive editor Emma Francois Spread editor Alli Kaufman Photo editor sarah jane kim assistant design editors Megan Howell, Lindsay Reilly, Abbey Roberts Staff Designers Jake Glass, Sam Lee, Aicha Nzie, cate o’leary, elizabeth pankova, rachel corbally, adam semprevivo, jack townsend

copy

copy chief Anna Gloor editors Audrey Bischoff, Jack Cashmere, Clara Cecil, Claire Goldberg, Isabel Lord, Isabel Paret, Julia Pinney, Jack Townsend, Gabriella Wan

online

14

podcast editor Jon block

15

general manager Naiara parker senior associate, finance and alumni outreach Jessica ho

The opinions expressed in The Georgetown Voice do not necessarily represent the views of the administration, faculty or students of Georgetown University, unless specifically stated. Columns, advertisements, cartoons and opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Board or the General Board of The Georgetown Voice. The university subscribes to the principle of responsible freedom of expression of its student editors. All materials copyright The Georgeton Voice, unless otherwise indicated.

businwess

3

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

READ MORE ON GEORGETOWNVOICE.COM HALFTIME

The Sports Sermon: NBA Season Preview In this week's episode, the hosts discuss the upcoming NBA season, predicting their choices for team and individual success while weighing the impacts of offseason developments. flickr

Case for the Classics: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Amy Guay revisits this 1966 giant of the Western genre, finding subtle complexities in its themes and a slow-burning tension that proves gripping throughout the film. imdb

Young Voices blog

Seven young writers share thoughts about spirituality and current events

NATIONAL CATHOLIC

REPORTER

THE INDEPENDENT NEWS SOURCE

RawPixel.com/Shutterstock

NCRonline.org/blogs/young-voices Facebook.com/NCRonline | Twitter: @NCRonline

EDITORIALS

4

OCTOBER 28, 2016

Vote Hillary Clinton/Timothy Kaine on Nov. 9 Now, more than ever, this country needs a competent and experienced leader to help guide American democracy away from the precipice it has neared during this election cycle.

This editorial board believes that the only viable option to serve as the 45th President of the United States is Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee. As former U.S. Secretary of State and senator for the state of New York, Clinton is among the most qualified candidates to ever run for president.

She brings an incredible amount of knowledge about both domestic and foreign affairs, as well as a work ethic that has become almost legendary among her peers.

Clinton holds laudable positions on most policy issues.

She has proposed a path for free higher education to public universities and will continue to tackle gender equality by ensuring that new parents have access to paid family leave. She has advocated for increased mental health care and will continue to push America toward a more affordable health care system.

This editorial board is also confident that Hillary Clinton will be more proactive than President Barack Obama in dealing with escalating problems in Syria, which have displaced tens of millions of Syrians across the region and the globe.

However, our endorsement of Clinton is not without reservation. Clinton has shown an evident disinterest in transparency throughout her campaign. Though she has apologized for the practice, she used a private server for sending emails as the Secretary of State. Some of those emails were deleted preceding a federal investigation. These acts are concerning and only heighten our desire for Clinton to show a renewed commitment to transparency in the White House that has deteriorated under the Obama administration.

Beyond this, Clinton is something of a symbol for the connection between politics and large corporations. Because of her extensive ties to Wall Street—such as her close relationship with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, as shown in leaked transcripts of her paid speeches to big-name investment banks—it is easy to question which team she is truly playing for, the banks or the American people.

With that said, Clinton’s faults pale in comparison to those of Republican nominee Donald Trump. Trump is dangerous.

His hateful rhetoric and constant dodging of responsibility leave no question that he is unfit to become the leader of the free world.

It would be a catastrophe to allow a man who believes he can do no wrong to fill a role that has become increasingly powerful in recent years. President Obama has set the precedent of using his executive power to unilaterally kill those who he sees as immediate enemies of the United States using drones.

Considering Trump’s gross lack of understanding or concern for the laws of international conflict, as evidenced by his call for airstrikes against the family members of alleged ISIS members, we are concerned that, as president, he would attempt to expand these powers and commit unspeakable crimes against humanity.

Of course, voters are not limited to these two options.

There are two other relatively prominent third-party candidates who have received a notable amount of media attention during this election cycle. Neither candidate is strong enough to merit a vote.

The first, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, comes from the Libertarian Party. Popular among Republicans

who refuse to vote for Trump, Johnson is trying to attract voters with his opposition to big government. The legitimacy of his candidacy, however, has been called into question by his severely limited understanding of international affairs.

On national television, he seemed unfamiliar with Aleppo, a key city in the Syrian conflict, and then was unable to name a foreign leader who he admired. These two blunders, and his many problematic policies, seal Johnson’s fate as an unviable candidate.

The other third-party candidate is Dr. Jill Stein, of the Green Party. In 2012, the Voice endorsed Stein over incumbent Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney, citing issues with Obama’s approach to foreign policy and disdain for Romney’s attitude and policy proposals. However, over the course of this election, Stein has disqualified herself from our support with her willingness to entertain conspiracy theories about vaccinations and 9/11 by responding with vague hesitation.

Though we agree with some of her policy prescriptions, including her strong stance against climate change and the power of Wall Street banks, many, such as writing off trillions of dollars of student debt using quantitative easing, are politically and practically unfeasible.

We understand that this election has brought forth two seriously unfavorable candidates, but this election is too important to use as a platform for a protest vote. If Donald Trump is elected, there will be very real and extremely negative consequences for many people. We urge you to choose the side that represents acceptance and equality, not fear-mongering and racism. This editorial board urges you to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Clinton Must Address the Root Causes of Trump Soon this circus will be over. And, barring catastrophic polling error, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton will have likely won the presidency. She would do well to view Republican nominee Donald Trump not just as a defeated political opponent, but as the symptom of a disease that must be treated.

While his candidacy seemed like a sick joke for much of the early campaign season, Trump has come frighteningly close to the Oval Office. He has managed to win the support of a significant portion of America despite making a series of political missteps that would verge on comical if they weren’t so often hateful and divisive.

This points to a deeper problem in American politics, and we ask that a prospective Clinton administration address it. The divides that separate us—financially, geographically, and politically—have grown too wide, and this has left room for dangerous forces to emerge. Having quashed Trump, Clinton would then need to make sense of the environment that allowed for his successes.

Trump-ism might die with a potential Trump defeat, but if the conditions that propelled him do not change, a candidate with a more refined set of political skills could all too easily take up his mantle in future elections. If Clinton wins, we ask that she act to lessen the likelihood of this prospect.

There are plenty of policy measures that could help achieve this, but we feel that the first, and most important step, is to bridge the gap that has created such mutual disdain between the white working class and the political establishment in America.

This disdain is not entirely the fault of those supporting Trump. It is largely due to a failure of imagination among those within the policymaking establishment, who simply do not understand the problems that exist outside their areas of the country. The problem of Trump, and the atmosphere that fuelled the growth of his movement, cannot be solved unless coastal elites attempt to empathize with the white working class in America.

The beginning of solving the problem of Trump is understanding his appeal, and as of now, that seems to be beyond the ability of most in the establishment.

This is not to say that either the Democrats or the government should bow to the pressures of bigotry and division put forth by Trump’s movement. It is only to recognize that the global economy, with its free movement of people and goods, has produced winners and losers. It would seem only natural that liberals would seek to protect the welfare of those marginalized by these changes. We ask that the next administration do so. If a would-be Clinton administration is able to lessen the impact of globalization

SAM lee on such groups, including the white working class, then it would likely lessen the chances that this demographic erupts into another full-scale political rebellion.

None of which is to excuse the toxicity of Trump and his ideas. It is only to say that a Clinton administration can take steps to ensure that this movement, once defeated, stays dead. His campaign has made clear that, if nothing else, serious divisions exist within America that must be addressed. To ignore them would be to risk enablingthe next quasi-authoritarian political movement to take this country by storm.

5

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

Ballot Blues

Carrying On: Voice Staffers Speak

Musings of a College Conservative At this point, it’s become something of a daily routine. I arrive at my apartment, sit down at my desk, and stare blankly at the slip of paper sitting in front of me. I turn the piece of paper over in my hand, hoping against all hope that this has all been a bad dream. After a few minutes of indecision, I put the absentee ballot away, resolving to make up my mind tomorrow.

My earliest political memory, perhaps my earliest memory in general, is of the 2000 Bush v. Gore election. Four-year-old me had no idea what a recount was, what the significance of a Supreme Court decision was, or what electoral votes meant (I was far too concerned with the status of the Yankees’ pitching staff to worry about such trivial matters). All I knew was that it was a mess.

Perhaps it is fitting. My first exposure to politics was the 2000 election; my first exposure to participating in the political process is the deranged 2016 election. Being a student at Georgetown in the throes of a presidential election should have been a defining moment in my fledgling political life.

Instead, it’s been one of the most alienating.

The obvious stereotype surrounding academia is its predominantly liberal slant, and Georgetown has certainly been no different. Since the beginning of my time here, the beauty of my experience has been encountering different viewpoints, and continually challenging my traditionally-held values. I’d just hoped that the party I’ve associated with would have been able to nominate a stronger standard-bearer than Donald Trump.

The continual Russian Roulette-esque game of deciding who to vote for has been a depressing experience. As a young voter, I feel rejected by both parties. I’ve definitely never agonized over such an impersonal decision before, and I doubt that I ever will again. Realistically, as a New Yorker, my vote will not matter. Still, that is no excuse to throw up my hands and sit idly by as the election proceeds. I’ve come to the conclusion that, while I can’t vote for him, Donald Trump’s candidacy is, in many ways, necessary for this country.

Trump’s campaign holds a brutally honest mirror up to our country. The persona of Trump acts as an amalgamation of a long-dormant part of American society, a part that was left behind by an increasingly globalized economy and a devastating recession. Few of us will encounter these Americans during our four years here, but that’s no reason to denigrate or dismiss their concerns. Their rage at the political and economic system has manifested itself in support for Trump. But there is another part of the country that has been left behind by this election: moderate conservatives, like me, who reject Clinton for ideological and ethical reasons, and who reject Trump for his protectionist views, ignorant nativism, Constitutional illiteracy, isolationist foreign policy, and...well, just about everything.

This is the inherent shortcoming of the two-party system.

Ideally, the existence of third parties would provide an outlet for such resentment against the two major parties. For a while, I had resolved to vote for Gary Johnson as a protest vote. This idea of “voting my conscience” quickly fell by the wayside

Sarah Martin

when it became apparent that Johnson was not qualified in the slightest for the presidency, and a vote for him would simply be a cheap method for avoiding confrontation with an eminently more difficult decision. However, assuming that I support Hillary simply because of Trump is not a conclusion that’s fair to draw. If the best justification I can find for voting for Clinton is that she’s not the other guy, then that is not enough.

I’ve heard multiple times the argument that not voting for Clinton would make me culpable in electing Donald Trump, if he wins. But a vote for Clinton is not as simple as it sounds. Clinton’s myriad scandals, policy “evolutions,” and outright fabrications would have most likely derailed a candidate in a normal election cycle. Whether or not you believe that Clinton’s email scandal should disqualify her from the presidency, the fact is that Clinton was, in the words of the FBI Director, “extremely careless” in her approach to national security. This does not bode well for her ability to handle a more important job. Trump has insulted people for their looks, ethnicity, and religion, but Hillary referred to millions of Trump supporters as “deplorables.” Again, “she’s not the other candidate” is a rather weak argument to make in favor of any candidate.

What makes Trump so radical, outside of his penchant for dishonesty and violent rhetoric, is that he presents the ultimate test for American democracy: can the system withstand someone who has so little regard for fundamental tenets of our democracy? Trump has proven incapable of

even doing something as basic as conceding the election if he loses. I’ve always tried to keep my faith in this country’s institutions, but the 2016 election and its aftermath will be their greatest challenge.

The answer to not wanting Trump isn’t to vote for Clinton.

Clinton’s election will most likely fail to fix the underlying catalysts for Trump’s rise. And as the media has increasingly railed against Trump, the proliferation of anti-Trump talking heads like John Oliver and Samantha Bee has created a counter-cultural allure to voting for him, to the point where a Clinton victory would be met with ever-increasing animosity from non-supporters. At its heart, the 2016 election isn’t about specific policies, or gender, or even the next four years.

It is about a complete upheaval of the American democratic tradition that provides the basis for our government, and yet has seemed to fail a large portion of the population.

I take out my New York ballot again and look despairingly at my choices for president. I see a possible source of salvation at the bottom of the paper: WRITE-IN. Perhaps I’ve finally made my decision: Is it a “y” or an “i” in Ryan?

Graham Piro.

He is a junior in the College.

By

VOICES

6

OCTOBER 28, 2016

Hidden Hegemony

Being a Voice of Vested Interest

Jus

tice

thy mpa

E

3rd St. NW

Soli

dar

ity

Elizabeth pankova

Last week, I had one of those 2 a.m. conversations with my closest friend at Georgetown that kept me up when I tried to fall asleep. Most essentially, he questioned me, as any good friend and intellectual should, about why I read and write so much about the issues I do. He asked why I, a white kid from Richmond, Va. who goes to Georgetown University, have any authority to talk about, or to be troubled by, destruction of black bodies, economic plunder, and enslavement.

It’s important to note that this conversation, this twisting and turning of my mind, happened in a larger conversation about the recent murder of Terrence Sterling, committed by Metro PD officer Brian Trainer on 3rd St. NW. I was watching, yet again, the body camera footage released by the department taken in the moments directly after the murder. And I was formulating my thoughts—on the overbearing institutional power of law enforcement that negates the race of single officers in a department, perhaps—for this very column.

I was frustrated, angered, even taken aback. This is my very best friend, after all. I decided, that night, to nix 900 words worth of work about Terrence Sterling, about the painful image of a black officer trying to resuscitate a black brother’s beautiful breaths. I replaced those 900 words with 900 new ones about the need for all people, of all races, to fight against systems of violent oppression. About the academic and intellectual perspective that can be, and is, provided about this violence by white writers. About the need for morality and conscience and ethics and heart and soul and tears to shatter barriers of race—particularly when those distinctions of race were and are constructed as a political tool used to maintain and build hegemonies and economic status.

But the more I thought, and continue to think about it, the more I felt uncomfortable with those new 900 words. It’s not that I think they are untrue, more that they are ancillary. The more I think about it, the more I know and feel the reality: thinking and writing about Terrence Sterling, or Michael Brown, or Eric Garner, or Tanisha Anderson, or Tamir Rice is not only inextricably tied to my response to the questions raised in the 2 a.m. conversation, but is that response.

When asked what white “allies” can do to mitigate the societal and structural flaws he writes so eloquently about, Ta-Nehisi Coates, echoing a James Baldwin sentiment of old, used an analogy: if Coates was lying on the ground with my foot pinning his neck beneath it, it would make no objective sense for me to ask him how to alleviate his choking. I’d just take my foot off his neck.

When I read and write and think and speak, I try to do just that: to take my foot off his neck.

Addressing issues surrounding inequality and oppression isn’t simply a matter of fixing laws and dismantling biases. Criminal justice reform isn’t just about becoming more fiscally responsible.

Effort isn’t made just for the greater sake of this thing we call America. It is about taking my foot

off of Coates’s neck. It is about blocking the flow of red that cascaded from Terrence Sterling’s head and pierced the black night, the pavement, the engulfing darkness.

I have, to whatever extent anyone thinks I have it, authority and a voice about and within issues of race because doing so undergirds what it means to be human. I have a voice, an education, and a system of support because those of us who are white, as the personification of our nation to this point, have pillaged and plundered and destroyed. We have houses because we owned chains. We have wealth and a system of capitalism because we committed floggings and beatings. We have freedom because we tortured, slowly and bloodily, black freedom. We have— and we continue to have—roads like 3rd St. NW because we sit idly by and let Terrence Sterling bleed out, alone, on it.

Ultimately, I, along with all white Americans, will need to take my foot off the necks of TaNehisi Coates, and James Baldwin, and black America.

We will need to converse about and grapple with the notion that our whiteness, our voices, and our self-actualizations do not exist outside the context of black destruction. If we fail to do so, Terrence Sterling will bleed out, alone, on 3rd Street NW. We will need to rid ourselves of the assumption that black America is in any way responsible for escaping its own oppression. If we fail to do so, Terrence Sterling will bleed out, alone, on 3rd St. NW. We will need to be voices of vested interest, of learned knowledge, and of assured authority.

If we fail to do so, Terrence Sterling will bleed out, alone, on 3rd St. NW. This is why I write about the intersection of criminal justice, from its primordial causes to its enduring implications, and race. I write not to represent or understand the lived experience of black oppression in any capacity. I write and speak out, because to not do so would be to assure that the blood of Terrence Sterling, in its solitude, on 3rd St. NW, continues to irrigate corn fields in Iowa, to mark roads in California, to sway in the willow trees of Louisiana, to bubble in the mud of Mississippi, to float in the chills of Lake Michigan.

By Isaiah Fleming-Klink He is a sophomore in the SFS.

7

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

VOICES

Forging a Path

Learn to Trust Yourself I remember how my hands were shaking. How I couldn’t seem to get rid of the adrenaline coursing through my veins, the shallow breathing, the thoughts in my head like monkeys swinging wildly from vine to vine.

It was the day of the deadline, back when I thought I wanted to study abroad at Oxford.

Never mind that I had no interest in England, never mind that I wanted to go somewhere other than Europe, or that I wanted to get away from intense academics. Oxford was the most prestigious study abroad program at Georgetown, so naturally, I had to apply.

I’d been thinking about this decision for months—reading all the blogs I could find, looking up pictures of the gorgeous Gothic buildings, fantasizing about the Hogwartsesque dining hall and the funny uniforms and the centuries-old traditions. I’d convinced myself that Oxford was the place of my dreams, the logical next step in a long series of steps that had begun nearly fourteen years ago, the year I started kindergarten. College had been the end-goal of all those years of schooling, and now that I had made it here, it made sense to aim for the next level: one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning in the entire world.

I wanted to go to Oxford. Why, then, did I find myself, on the day of the deadline, scrambling to complete an application that I’d thought about for nearly a year?

I’d tried again and again to write the essays, but something inside me couldn’t do it. I couldn’t explain why I wanted to go, which is why the deadline crept up unexpectedly one Friday in November.

That Friday found me walking into my dean’s office in the ICC, sweaty from having run around taking my passport photo and frantically typing my essay, with a form for her to fill out due only a few hours later. It was the look of concern from my dean that was the worst of all as she registered my state of disarray, my low-level panic, my embarrassment seeping out of my pores at having begged her to meet with me on the absolute last day of the deadline. It was her pity and concern that solidified my sense of failure. I managed to pull together all the components of my application in time, but needless to say it was poorly done, and ultimately I was not nominated. I didn’t need the rejection, delivered a few weeks later, to know that I had done a bad job. To know that I had been trying to force something that wasn’t meant for me.

Nearly two years later, as November of my senior year rolls around, I can think back to that day sophomore year and see how much I’ve changed. I trust myself so much more now. I trust that I know what’s best for me, I trust my own judgement, my own curiosities, my own intuition. Back then, I didn’t trust myself at all.

Instead of going to Oxford, I went to Valparaíso, a half-forgotten city in Chile on the edge of the vast Pacific Ocean that sings its own mournful story of the glory days before the Panama Canal. Instead of diving into one of the most rigorous academic environments in the world, I took a step back, learning to slow down and embrace the Chilean pace of life. Instead of going to the metropolis of one of Europe’s most powerful empires, I was shown a view of the world colored by a history of colonial domination, geographic isolation, and economic and cultural subordination.

I don’t mean to say that study abroad was a uniformly, one-dimensionally “lifechanging” experience; you don’t need to hear it, and I don’t need to write it.

What I do mean to say is that the privilege of time and distance allowed me to explore myself and the world around me in a non-Georgetown context, giving me the gift of perspective I so sorely needed. From the (literal) other side of the globe I could look at this school and understand it better: the incredible academics, the prime location, the exceptional student body, the non-stop busyness culture. That perspective is what allowed me to come back in the spring finally refreshed. It’s what gave me the strength to quit D.C. Reads (which I loved), to leave this publication (which I also loved), and to let myself audit a film class taught by my favorite professor just because I wanted to.

What I gained from study abroad was faith in myself, in knowing what I want and need, in listening to my own inner voice instead of following the (often well-intentioned and useful) advice of others when I already sense the answer within myself. This selfknowledge was always there, lurking below the surface of my consciousness, trying to make

MAX thomas

itself heard, sabotaging any efforts that would steer me away from my own path (ahem, Oxford). It took the distance of a new country, a new continent, a new hemisphere, though, for me to finally stop and listen to myself.

Of course, I still don’t know everything about myself, or what I want in life. As a senior, all you have to do is ask me about my future career plans and that certainty starts to waver.

These conversations always evoke that powerful metaphor in Sylvia Plath’s The Bell Jar, as the protagonist looks into the branches of a giant fig tree and, unwilling to choose one fig to eat for fear of losing the rest, can only watch as her indecision allows the figs to rot and fall to the ground. But while I’m not sure what I want, I do know for certain that there are certain things I don’t want, things that my younger self would have been to afraid to reject, and these small certainties are comforting in their way.

You know that saying about the acorn (A Bug’s Life, anyone)? About how it already contains the entire tree within itself, and all it needs is some rain and sunshine to grow into a great big oak? I’ll defer to Elizabeth Gilbert to finish my thought here (and yes, I’m a fan of Eat, Pray, Love): “There is another force operating here as well—the future tree itself, which wants so badly to exist that it pulls the acorn into being, drawing the seedling forth with longing out of the void, guiding the evolution from nothingness to maturity. In this respect, say the Zens, it is the oak tree that creates the very acorn from which it was born.”

Perhaps we know within us what we want to become, who we want to be. Perhaps that’s the voice within you that already knows that you need music to live, or that you would actually love consulting, or that you feel at home in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I don’t know if I believe in destiny—I’m too much a product of our times—but what I believe with every fiber of my being is that all people have within them the tools to discover certain truths about themselves. It’s worth taking a step back to stop, think for a second, and start to listen to what it is you want.

By Sabrina Kayser.

She is a senior in the College.

OCTOBER 28, 2016

8

Students Share Their Thoughts on the Election and the Nation’s Political Climate For months now, talk of the upcoming elections has been everywhere. It has been virtually impossible to open a news site or to scroll through Twitter without encountering yet another article on Donald Trump’s latest offense or Hillary Clinton’s turbulent career. Given the intense scrutiny on both candidates, a narrative has emerged in the national media of millennial voters abandoning both Trump and Clinton, and instead voting en masse for third-party candidates.

To learn about about Hoyas’ opinions on the elections, the Voice asked Georgetown students to share their perspectives on today’s political climate. In the heat of an election season filled with scandals, insults, racism, and sexism, several students shared their views. While our interviewees may not be representative of the campus or young people in general, they can offer their own perspectives as well as some insight into the direction of this country’s political climate.

The following interviews have been edited for clarity.

By Caitlyn Cobb and Kenneth Lee Jawad Pullin (COL ’18)

“There are ideological ecosystems on this campus for libertarians, hard-right Catholics, and many minority groups on campus. They often discuss views amongst each other and don’t often venture beyond their safe spaces. But for the most part, Hoyas engage in a lot of political discussions on campus and it makes us smarter and more reasonable and more respectful of one another as a result. One example that comes to mind is the Jeh Johnson commencement controversy from the end of last semester. One doesn’t often see Latinos, UndocuHoyas, and allies engaging in impassioned debates about immigration reform with moderates, conservatives, and free speech advocates. But on the Facebook event page, that’s what you saw. It was very heated.

A lot of barbs were thrown both ways. But deep down, I think most people were aware that a consensus could be reached.”

Jawad identifies as a Democrat and is voting for Hillary Clinton. He is a member of Georgetown College Democrats.

Marcela Barrientos (SFS ’18)

“I’m from New York, and I was there at Occupy Wall Street, and so that was my introduction to any sort of political conversation, if we can call it that. And it was just this terrible disillusionment and disappointment and frustration with students who I guess were my age back then. And they didn’t really have any resources or any sort of means to speed up change they wanted to see so they took to the streets, and even with Trump supporters now, I think though they’re often dismissed as racist, ignorant, I think that’s kind of villainizing poor, working-class people without the resources, so naturally they tend to just give up on ‘the establishment’ and try to look for other means. It doesn’t make sense to the rest of us, but we are pretty detached from their reality.

“So I can’t vote. I’m not a citizen; I’m a permanent resident. If I could vote, I’d probably vote for Hillary because I feel like it’s my duty as a citizen to vote, but otherwise, I don’t think my vote would make a difference anyway. I’m from New York so she’s set there, but still, I don’t agree with Gary Johnson’s views and Trump doesn’t benefit me in the slightest sense. I’m not trying to get deported, so my only other option is Hillary.”

Marcela is a member of the International Relations Club’s outreach board.

Kevin Chao (COL ’18)

“There have always been certain issues where there is one position that is tough to express on college campuses, especially with contentious issues of personhood and individual liberty such as abortion and gay rights. But Trump is unusual in that supporting him at all has become anathema on our campus. It’s tough because I personally think his views are uninformed, dangerous, and offensive in most cases, especially with regard to his policies on Muslims and freedom of the

press, both of which are First Amendment issues. But I do think dialogue is important, and we ought to tolerate people who advocate these things. Tolerance doesn’t come under condition of reciprocity. We need to tolerate others’ right to express intolerant opinions.

“I’m voting for Gary Johnson. I can’t bring myself to vote for either of the major-party candidates, and I think we need to come to the realization that voting for a doomed candidate is not a wasted vote … If the Libertarian Party can hit five percent of the popular vote this year, they will have access to federal campaign funds next election cycle. This is counted nationally, so your vote will still count even if you’re in a solid red or solid blue state. I doubt most students would support Gary Johnson because of his ignorance of foreign affairs, his desire to scale back federal regulations, or simply the fact that he can’t win. But he checks the right boxes for me. A weaker federal government, and one that’s less engaged in international issues, is just what we need.”

Kevin identifies as a libertarian and is a member of Georgetown Young Americans for Liberty.

Julie Antonellis (COL ’17)

“I think sometimes this campus can feel like a liberal echo chamber, so the environment’s not too conducive to bipartisan conversations. I do think Georgetown’s Institute for Politics and Public Service has tried to promote bipartisan conversation by bringing diverse speakers or fellows to campus.

“While I acknowledge there’s been some political polarization, I don’t think we’re as divided as it may seem. Most of us agree on issues such as universal background checks for gun owners and the need to address income inequality in some way.”

Julie is the editor-in-chief of The Georgetown Progressive. She is voting for Hillary Clinton.

Peter Hamilton (COL ’18)

“What’s driven me more towards voting for [Trump] than anything else has been the extreme, vile, vulgar, and disgusting attacks on both Trump and on his supporters … I think that just because someone is white, lower-income, didn’t go to college, and lives in the South doesn’t mean that their opinion immediately should be discounted from politics, or not represented. And that goes for every minority: just because you’re black, or a woman, doesn’t mean that your vote shouldn’t count. A lot of time, though, people just look at his supporters and say, ‘Oh, it’s just those dumb people from the South,’ and that really upsets me because they’re people too.

“One of the main reasons I am voting for Trump is the Supreme Court. I think it’s important to have conservative justices, and I personally think that Trump isn‘t going to do any of what he says he’s going to do—he’s not going to build a wall, he’s not going to ban all Muslims, he’s not going to do any of that—just because of limits on presidential power. I think if you look at the cost-benefit analysis, the cost of electing Clinton is thirty years of liberal Supreme Court justices,

9

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

and the cost of a Trump presidency is that maybe we lose some international standing, but we would have a conservative Supreme Court, and we would have a president who, as long as we maintain the status quo, wouldn’t destroy the United States.”

Peter is a member of the College Republicans. The College Republicans has not endorsed a presidential candidate for the election.

Mason Hill (SFS ’17)

“I was much more a Republican of convenience, because that was the straightforward way to get internships, being a white male from Kentucky ... As Georgetown students probably know from Capitol Hill internships, in the minutiae of that, when you’re in the weeds, it’s really just pick a side and play with it. Or at least that’s my personal attitude towards it.

“I think there’s been proportionally more Trump supporters at Georgetown than other groups of millennials, particularly on the East Coast. As someone from Kentucky, I always say, Trump’s a New York Republican problem, not a southern Republican problem, as the narrative tends to be. The Trump supporters on this campus … they’re not coming from a place of empathy with Trump supporters, but it seems to me to be coming from a place of careerism.

“You have all kinds of misogynistic, racist, anti-semitic tropes that are embedded in [Trump’s tirades] … But Georgetown students in their personal conversations about the election generally fail to dive deeper than, ‘Oh, it’s a bunch of rednecks voting for Trump.’ Well, let’s unpack that term. What do you mean by that? Why would somebody vote for Trump? My issue is more in terms of the academic discourse … I don’t think you can identify this gap in liberal democracy without having a more in-depth conversation about that … I’ve been disappointed in Georgetown students’ unwillingness or inability, particularly in the SFS, to use either the empirical tools to try and explain Trump or the humanistic tools to try and empathize with Trump supporters.”

Mason is a member of the International Relations Club. He is voting for Hillary Clinton.

Ari Goldstein (COL ’18)

“It can be difficult to be a young independent in a political system that is built around the two major parties. I haven’t interned on Capitol Hill, for example, because I know that interning for a member of Congress will forever stamp my resume with that political party. I also was not allowed to participate in the mock Iowa caucus that was held by GU Politics this spring since a caucus is inherently a partisan event.

“I think we have a pretty solidly bipartisan campus culture, but that has certainly become more difficult during this election cycle since there are so few outspoken Donald Trump supporters on campus. Frankly, I think that’s fine—let’s continue to focus on genuine dialogue between liberal and conservative ideologies rather than getting sucked into the Trump-obsessed political drama that has taken over the media.”

Ari identifies as an independent and is voting for Hillary Clinton. He is the Chief of Staff of the Georgetown University Student Association.

Lizzy Grannis (COL ’18)

“I am certainly not voting for either Clinton or Trump. I’ve been told that I should vote for Clinton because I’m a woman and women have to stick together, which was one of the most asinine and sexist things I’ve heard this year. I’m not going to vote one particular way just because I have a vagina. I’m going to make a smart and informed decision for the good of my country.

Assuming I would do anything else is an insult to my character.”

Lizzy identifies as a libertarian and is a member of Georgetown Students for Johnson.

my freshman year, I began to get involved with No Labels, a national bipartisan organization.

Georgetown University became one of the first colleges in the United States to start a chapter.

“Campus often reflects the bitter partisan divide in the country. For example, I am the Grand Knight of the Georgetown University Knights of Columbus. For years there had been, and probably still continues to be, tension between us and H*yas for Choice. If you eavesdropped the pro-choice’s table in Red Square, you would often hear degrading comments thrown at the Catholic and pro-life community. The same can probably be said about my side as well. That’s why I’ve reached out to leaders of organizations who staunchly disagree with our values and ideals. If we want to make change, conversations must begin that are rooted in a the dignity of the other …

Neither side is totally correct. There is almost always merit it to the other side of the argument.

Mutual respect begins right at home. I room with a staunch Trump supporter, a passionate Bernie bro, a Gary Johnson enthusiast, and an apolitical voter. We have terrific conversations not just about politics, but how we came to have certain views. Empathy matters.”

Max identifies as a moderate Catholic Democrat and is voting for Hillary Clinton.

Charlotte Kovach (COL ’18)

“Whether or not you agree with this assessment, someone I know just called this election the choice between a crook and a creep. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton, but I also will not be voting for Donald Trump. I cannot vote for Trump because I do not feel that he embodies Republican ideas, or upholds moral standards. I will not betray my principles simply to vote along party lines, and I don’t think anyone else should either. I’ve agonized over this election for a long time and decided to vote for Evan McMullin. I’m actually very happy with this decision, and I think my reasoning makes a lot of sense to other conservatives on campus.”

Charlotte identifies as a moderate Republican. She is a member of the Institute of Politics and Public Service’s student advisory board, and is on the executive board of No Labels Georgetown.

Jasmin Ouseph (SFS ’19)

“While most students here are liberal, and many students demand basic respect and tolerance in discussions, I don’t think this prevents meaningful bipartisan discourse. I don’t subscribe to complaints about liberals demanding people be ‘politically correct’ or ‘sensitive’ because that just means one is going to be held accountable for saying racist/sexist/queerphobic/problematic things.

“I am voting for Hillary Clinton. Well before the primaries, even while I supported Bernie, I acknowledged that she was the most qualified candidate … The most disagreement I’ve faced— despite from unabashed Trump supporters—has come from several of my more radical friends that refuse to compromise their beliefs to vote for who they used to call ‘the most moderate conservative in the race.’ As former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich put it, ‘Hillary is the best candidate for the system we have. Bernie is the best candidate for the system we need.’ At this point, Bernie is not an option, and I live in Florida so I’m definitely taking my vote seriously. I don’t vote for people or parties, I vote for outcomes, and I know that the outcomes of voting for Hillary are better than the outcomes of not voting for her.”

Jasmin supported Bernie Sanders during the primaries, but is voting for Hillary Clinton. She is a member of H*yas for Choice and GUSA senator.

Maximilian Fiege (SFS ’18)

“I think the current trend of social consciousness on politically-charged issues of race, gender, immigration status, ability, et al., is new for conservatives. They are used to debating liberals on the role of government, or tax reform, or health care reform. They are not as used to discussing Black Lives Matter, or rape culture. They want to debate these issues as if they are policy differences, when those who support BLM or the existence of rape culture see these issues as matters of fact, carrying the weight of truth, and that those who disagree are guilty of a serious moral flaw. I believe that this is a source for the tension that has been seen in recent months between conservatives and their more left-leaning peers on campus.

“I am far more interested in my state’s (North Carolina) down-ballot races for U.S. Senate and governor. I think students should pay far more attention to down-ballot races, since they can impact their families’ lives on a greater and more immediate scale.”

Jose is voting for Hillary Clinton. He is involved in the Institute of Politics and Public Service.

“I’ve found [political] divides to run along school lines. Students who study global issues and political theory throughout the College and SFS tend to have the most refined positions on issues, whereas I’ve noticed that students in the MSB, NHS, and College who don’t regularly get exposure to public policy lack a similar level of nuance. I lay blame on a variety of factors for this, namely the polarized media, the affluent background of the average Georgetown student, and lack of coursework in political science or global affairs. Essentially, I believe the divide arises from the fact that many students base their beliefs off of biased inputs because they believe it to be the norm, without ever being put in the position to defend it under scrutiny.

“I will be voting for Hillary Clinton in November, as I consider 2016 to be the first great inflection point of the 21st century. The policies enacted in the next presidential term will determine how the USA navigates a ‘G-0’ world, and whether or not we will be able to hit 2050 climate change targets. I do not care how Machiavellian or cavalier Hillary is, all I know is that she will be able to negotiate with the international community from a seat of respect and push scientific innovation as a national agenda. That some people consider spineless schmucks like Trump or Gary Johnson as suitable alternatives is offensive to me.”

Maximilian identifies as a progressive.

Max Rosner (COL ’18)

Matthew Maury contributed reporting.

Jose Altamirano (COL ’17)

“I was active in the College Democrats my first semester at the Hilltop, but I was a bit upset that many of the meetings began by ridiculing conservatives. Early in the second semester of

10

October 28, 2016

Free Speech, With Restrictions Is Georgetown’s Free Speech Policy Free Enough?

By Graham Piro Georgetown was one of the ten worst schools in the nation for free speech in 2014.

That is according to a report released in 2015 by FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) which gave the university a red light rating, the worst of three ratings a college can receive.

Georgetown’s speech and expression policy is available on its website. The university “is committed to standards promoting speech and expression that foster the maximum exchange of ideas and opinions,” it states.

Sandy Unger, a former president of Goucher College and a professor who teaches a seminar on free speech at Georgetown, defended the free speech environment at the university.

“FIRE hands out a lot of red light ratings; Georgetown is hardly in a small, exclusive club,” he said. “I see H*yas for Choice behind a table in Red Square with great frequency, so I think that they manage to get their message across pretty effectively.”

“

FIRE hands out a lot of red light ratings; Georgetown is hardly in a small, exclusive club.

”

For some, however, that is not enough.

In September, the Voice reported that a Georgetown University Police Department officer removed a condom envelope from the door of a H*yas for Choice representative. H*yas for Choice Co-President Brinna Ludwig (NHS ’17) said that the incident was a result of confusion and that she did not fault the officer. However, she does fault the system.

“I think that there isn’t sufficient training in the free speech policy, necessarily,” she said. “I think that goes for students, administration, staff, and faculty.”

Georgetown Chief of Police Jay Gruber clarified the incident involving the GUPD officer who tore down the envelope. He explained that the officers involved were called to the floor because of suspected vandalism. Among other things, two doors were tied together with fishing line and other doors had fishing lines strung together with a condom and bread hanging off of it.

“There was an envelope with a large penis drawn on it and some other verbiage, so the officers thought that this was some

sort of vandalism and so they took everything down,” Gruber said. “They certainly weren’t targeting a condom envelope on a door. It certainly wasn’t an officer walking by, seeing an obscene image, and taking it down on their own.”

D.J. Angelini (MSB ’17), GUSA’s free speech policy chair, explained that he believes that these types of events are not the norm. “I think it’s often misunderstood, I think that GUPD as a whole has a very good understanding of the free speech and expression policy,” he said. “The problem comes when it’s individual actors … it’s oftentimes one individual person who may not understand the policy, and then that person becomes a representation of the institution.”

Chief Gruber said that he sent a reminder email to all of GUPD after meeting with H*yas for Choice about the fact that students’ doors are free speech zones. “Every new officer is trained on the speech and expression policy,” he said. “In 2015, every member of the department was retrained on the [policy] by the Center for Student Engagement staff.”

However, there is some ambiguity in the policy as to how much authority GUPD has in determining what is obscene. “It’s really not clear in the policy if GUPD has the authority to determine what is and is not explicit. In this case, it was a very well-drawn, anatomically correct penis,” Ludwig said.

Students have the ability to pursue a hearing with the Free Speech and Expression Committee if they believe that their speech rights have been violated. In this particular instance, Ludwig said, the students chose not to, but she also mentioned that condom envelopes are often torn down.

As a private Jesuit institution, Georgetown has had to find a balance between upholding traditional Jesuit values and promoting student freedom of speech and expression. In an effort to find that balance, the administration has designated free speech zones around campus for free expression, the most prominent of which is located in Red Square. As an unrecognized group, H*yas for Choice can only table in designated free speech zones.

These limitations on the speech of unrecognized student groups play a role in the university’s red light rating. A university must have a clear restriction that infringes on what is or what should be protected expression to receive a red light rating, according to FIRE’s website. A yellow light rating indicates that a school has policies that “could be too easily used to restrict protected expression,” and a green light rating signifies that a school has no policies that seriously imperil free speech.

Azhar Majeed, FIRE’s Director of Policy Reform, explained that the organization’s mission is to defend student and faculty rights at universities across the country When asked why Georgetown’s rating was so poor, Majeed explained that Georgetown’s speech codes and applied practices show disregard for student speech rights. “Over the years, we have attempted to intervene on behalf of a student group called H*yas for Choice,” he said. “Georgetown has repeatedly infringed on their right to distribute materials on campus and to go about their daily affairs and conducted daily activity.” Majeed pointed to a specific event in September 2014 when H*yas for

Choice was tabling on the sidewalk outside the front gates. The people tabling were removed by GUPD for no clear reason, and then were allowed to return after an hour. Chief Gruber later apologized for the incident.

“What FIRE has said is that the University can’t have it both ways,” Majeed continued. “It can’t claim to be an institution for free speech and liberal inquiry, but at the same time claim that it can restrict any speech that it does not wish to take place on its campus.”

Georgetown is not alone in its red light rating. Majeed said that of over 400 schools across the country, FIRE has only given 28 green light ratings.

Freedom of expression plays a central role in free speech at Georgetown, but other factors cannot be ignored, such as which student groups the university chooses to recognize. Fraternities and sororities are unrecognized by the university because they are perceived to represent values antithetical to the university’s. Due to this status, these and other unrecognized groups, such as H*yas for Choice, must work without having access to the benefits that other organizations have, such as getting funding from the university.

An email was sent out for the second year in a row earlier this semester by the Division of Student Affairs that the leadership of fraternities and the GUSA free speech team perceived to be dissuading students from joining fraternities or sororities.

This served as a catalyst for the creation of a GUSA liaison to Greek life this year.

“

It’s oftentimes one individual person who may not understand the policy, and then that person becomes a representation of the institution.

”

Tucker Cowden (MSB ’17), the first and current GUSA liaison to Greek Life, spoke to how the free speech policy affects those organizations, and how GUSA works to help these organizations recruit and also reserve rooms. “The role that the free speech team in GUSA has is that during things like CAB Fair where there’s tabling on the lawns, there’s an assigned space for non-access-to-benefits-groups,” he explained.

11

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

Campus Free Speech Zones

Darnall Hall/Henle Village Healey Family Student Center

Tabling Restrictions

1

#

First come, first served

Leave room for safe passage

Alumni Square might be reserved

Tabling allowed 9am – 10pm Graphic: Jake Glass & OpenStreetMap Contributors

As an organization, H*yas for Choice is limited to designated free speech zones. “At the beginning of all of our meetings, we have to designate that what we’re saying is not sanctioned by the university,” Ludwig said. “A lot of other student groups who are recognized by the university have a lot more freedom.”

Doors to residential rooms and apartments are considered free speech zones, with the policy stating, “students may use this space to post flyers or materials intended to express per-

“

sonal views.” RA’s doors are not included because the doors are considered university property, but other students’ doors have traditionally been a protected free speech space. H*yas for Choice representatives commonly put condom envelopes on their doors, as allowed by their individual free speech rights under Georgetown’s policy.

Unger addressed the conflict between the university’s Jesuit values and promoting the free speech of students and student groups who may not fall in line with Jesuit teachings, like H*yas

What FIRE has said is that the university can’t have it both ways. It can’t claim to be an institution for free speech and liberal inquiry, but at the same time claim that it can restrict any speech that it does not wish to take place on its campus.

“

for Choice. “Georgetown is a Jesuit and Catholic university, and it has certain values that are well-known and well-advertised so nobody should be surprised when they get to Georgetown,” he said. “But I actually think that Georgetown manages to create a pretty impressive, delicate balance between its Jesuit philosophy and its free speech values.” To Unger, it is most important that students are able to speak freely and get their message heard.

“My experience is that they do.”

I actually think that Georgetown manages to create a pretty impressive, delicate balance between its Jesuit philosophy and its free speech values.

OCTOBER 28, 2016

Little Movement Visible in Nike Negotiation

By Maddy Rice

The branding contract between Georgetown University and Nike expires on Dec. That’s why Angeles Solís is advocating for Georgetown to drop the contract and 31. As of now, Nike has not signed Georgetown’s code of conduct, and if Georgetown set an example for other Nike affiliated schools. Solís is the international campaigns renews the contract, Nike will continue to be the only company affiliated with the organizer for United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) and believes Georgetown university that has not signed this document. has both an opportunity and a responsibility to drop the Nike contract.

Over a year ago, Nike refused to let the Worker Rights Consortium, a third party “Brands care a lot about producing university apparel because of the brand monitoring organization meant to protect workers’ rights, into their Vietnam factory recognition and profit it brings,” Solís said. “At a critical time like this, when Nike Hansae, after reports of over-exhaustion, overheating, and abuse from management. is trying to turn back the clock on basic labor compliance, we need universities like This sparked a series of student protests on Georgetown’s campus led by the Georgetown Georgetown to once again give Nike an ultimatum and force them to respect the rights Solidarity Committee and Athletes and Advocates for Workers Rights, resulting in of its workers.” student athletes taping over the Nike logos on their university-issued equipment.

According to Solís, movements for social justice often begin with student protests.

Although President John DeGioia accepted private recommendations last year from “Oftentimes, students are steps ahead of their administration in the global fight for the Licensing and Oversight Committee (LOC), a group comprised of students, faculty, justice,” Solís said. “Students everywhere are fighting for an education so that they can go and administrators to advise the school on the use of its brand, Georgetown and Nike forth and change the world—but it can be done right here, right now, on your campus.” have continued negotiations for months. Isabelle Teare In addition to the major publicity Georgetown would (COL ’18), a member of the LOC, has been active in the generate by declining to renew the contract, Teare highlights Nike issue since it came to students’ attention. For Teare, the significance of Georgetown’s unique position and history. continued negotiations are a bad sign.

“We are a name brand school,” Teare said. “We are “The only thing that these negotiations could mean is located in the nation’s capital, and on top of that, we have special treatment, loopholes, trying to find ways that Nike this history of being leaders on social issues through our can maybe sign our code of conduct but still not allow Jesuit values.”

It isn’t easy for the person over independent monitoring,” Teare said. “That’s what we’re In 2012, students protested the university’s relationship worried about.” with Adidas, another athletics company found to be there whose life depends on the The LOC is supposed to advise the administration in committing labor violations. The university terminated its negotiations. This truly is a life or negotiations on use of Georgetown’s logo, but in this case, Adidas contract in early 2013. Five years earlier, Georgetown Teare says they have been severely limited. broke with Russell Athletics for similar reasons. That’s why death issue.

“Even this committee has no idea how negotiations are Solís believes it is time to cut ties with Nike in the same way. going. We’re not being told,” Teare said. “On top of that, “The best way for us to truly be in solidarity with the [the LOC] isn’t granted access to see the contract in this workers producing Nike Hoya apparel would be to give whole scheme. I think that’s a huge problem.”

Nike an ultimatum: compel your supplier factories to Cal Watson (COL ’07, LAW ’14) is a faculty chair for allow independent labor monitoring by the Worker Rights the LOC who has worked with students on the Nike issue, Consortium, or lose the right to make our apparel,” Solís said. and acts as a liaison between administrators and students as the negotiations progress.

“In order to support these workers, we have to hold multinational brands like Nike to a “We are in ongoing discussions with Nike regarding the status of its license with higher standard, and it is one Nike is failing to meet.”

Georgetown,” Watson wrote in an email to the Voice. “We have communicated to Nike With the university still in negotiations and the LOC unable to access or share our commitment to the Code of Conduct for Georgetown University Licensees, which information about the negotiations with the student body, Teare says the responsibility protects the rights of workers producing University-licensed apparel.” for change falls to the students.

To the average Georgetown student, non-renewal would mean no more Nike“If none of the students cared about this on campus, the administration would brand Hoya apparel. However, renewing the Nike contract would mean maintaining sweep it under the rug” Teare said. “The thing that powers Georgetown is the students.” a relationship with a company that does not allow third party monitoring of their Solís advises student movements around the world, and at this juncture, she asserts factories, with a company accused of human rights abuses and of using sweatshop the power students have to define how their universities behave. labor. It would mean maintaining a relationship that Teare finds unacceptable.

“Students have played a critical role in many historic movements in the U.S. and “It’s easy for the university to sit there and be like, ‘yeah, we’re in negotiations,’ but around the world, including the anti-sweatshop movement,” Solís said. “Students it’s been eight months,” Teare said. “It isn’t easy for the person over there whose life organizing on their campuses across the country have led to historic victories alongside depends on the negotiations. This truly is a life or death issue. I think the university is garment workers and improved thousands of lives.” being incredibly irresponsible by not taking this more seriously.”

That’s what student activists at Georgetown are trying to accomplish.

The issue extends far beyond Georgetown, as many schools throughout the country “Students will protest,” Teare said. “Students will hold actions. We care about this.” have sponsorship contracts with Nike.

As the Nike licensing contract’s expiration date, Dec. 31, draws closer by the day, “Many schools are looking to Georgetown to see what we do,” Teare said. “It’s either Teare is clear on what student activists want. going to keep us moving forward in the right track of worker justice, or, if Georgetown doesn’t “We want DeGioia to uphold his promise,” Teare said. “If they don’t sign, they stand by its word and do the right thing, what that does is sends us 20 years backwards.” don’t work with us.”

“

“

12

13

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

Crash and Burn Inferno Fails to Ignite

By Graham Piro It is never a good sign when the part of the film I’m most interested in is the score.

Yet midway through Inferno , I stopped and thought to myself, “Is this soundtrack by Hans Zimmer?” I spent the rest of the film trying to decide if that was the case. (It was.) Indeed, Inferno does not have much to offer besides another solid Zimmer score, as Ron Howard directs Tom Hanks in a disappointing thriller based on the significantly more engaging Dan Brown novel.

Hanks and co-star Felicity Jones fail to elevate an uninspired screenplay from David Koepp. The film moves along deliberately and patiently in the first hour before kicking into overdrive and throwing twist after twist at the audience in the film’s second half. The result is an occasionally entertaining, but consistently muddled mess that lacks the intrigue of The Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons.

The film begins with the villain, a billionaire determined to unleash a plague on humanity, committing suicide. Within the first two minutes, the audience understands the villain’s plan and his motivations. Next, the film cuts to Hanks’ Professor Robert Langdon waking up in a hospital bed in Florence, Italy with a head wound and no memory of how he got there. This is a clever move on the film’s part. By having Langdon piece together the details of what has happened, the audience gets to follow the story along with him in an organic manner.

After a good introduction, the film begins to drag as the story unfolds by introducing a myriad of unnecessary subplots. Irrfan Khan plays a character mysteriously titled “The Provost” who works for a dark and shadowy organization, and his motivations, as well as his contribution to the plot, are never made clear. Omar Sy turns in a commendable performance as a secondary villain who pursues Langdon, but he is plagued by weak development. These divergences, which include a love interest who is suddenly introduced over halfway into the film, only cause further confusion for the viewer.

This lack of cohesion and character development gets at one of the biggest issues with the film: none of the characters feel like actual human beings. Langdon is a likeable protagonist, but the other characters are mere mouthpieces as they spout exposition to keep the film’s story moving forward. The lackluster

plot simply does not have the legs to carry the film without compelling characters.

In the series’ previous two films, weak characters did not prove fatal due to those films’ compelling storylines. Inferno’s story has an interesting start but is so convoluted that by the time the film rushes to the ending, the payoff is not worth it. The film briefly hints at an interesting discussion of issues such as overpopulation, eugenics, and the impacts of a plague on the nonhuman world. Yet it never engages with these issues in any depth. Instead, Howard and Koepp get bogged down in trying to surprise the audience with character betrayals and red herrings, without ever truly achieving the intended effect. What was supposed to be a shocking twist that occurs midway through the film instead had the audience laughing at the overwrought writing.

Inferno burns out at about the one hour mark, a time when the film needs the audience’s investment so that the plethora of plot revelations and developments make sense. The issue is that the film lacks any sort of edge, as its story is that of a generic action film. The Da Vinci Code made bold and controversial claims about the Catholic Church, Angels and Demons went into great discussion of the Illuminati conspiracy, and Inferno, well, does not have anything nearly as interesting to offer.

Howard provides some beautiful shots of Italian architecture, yet otherwise his directing comes across as overdone. In the film’s opening, as Langdon is recovering from his head wound, he has visions of Dante’s Hell realized on Earth. At first, these scenes are disturbing and disorientating, but Howard goes back to the well about six too many times. The use of shaky-cam, jump cuts, and shocking imagery becomes bland and uninspired through Howard’s overuse. He would have been better-off peppering in fewer of these scenes to maximize their impact.

The Robert Langdon series has been noteworthy for the arguments surrounding the stories’ depiction of the Catholic Church and its claims about the Church’s history. This spurred the success of the first two films in the series. This formula, it seems, has run its course, and Tom Hanks should leave the adventuring to Harrison Ford or even Nicolas Cage (when is National Treasure III happening?), as Robert Langdon appears to be a one-trick pony. Inferno’s worst sin is how eminently forgettable it is.

IMDb

IMDb

LEISURE

14

OCTOBER 28, 2016

Fugue Explores Memory, Identity, and the Secrets We Keep

By Anna Shuster

Bailey bradford

Nomadic Theatre’s first production of the season, Fugue, handles intense themes and an ambitious script with tact and skill. Identity, sexuality, guilt, grief, and the complexity of the human existence are unpacked in this two-and-a-half-hour production, directed and produced by Mark Camilli (COL ’19) and Samantha Matta (COL ’19). This thoughtful production also marks the opening of the brand new Village C West theater, the future (semi-permanent) home for Nomadic productions.

Fugue begins as a woman named Mary, played by Healy Knight (COL ’19), is found wandering the streets of Chicago, feet bloody from walking aimlessly for hours. She has no memories and no idea who she is; all anyone can tell is that she’s running from something.

She is suffering from fugue, a rare form of amnesia triggered by severe trauma, and mental health specialist Dr. Danny Lucchesi (Alexander Yurcaba [COL ’18]) is called in to help. As the two discover more about her past, they are both forced to confront their own haunting memories, facing realities that are almost too painful to process.

The play has an intense focus on mental health, which demands dynamic performances from the two leads. Knight delivers spectacularly, capturing both the fragility of someone who has lost all her memories and the fierce desperation to escape the confines of her hospital room and the suffocating confusion of her mind. She also captures the nervous energy of her character, who is being constantly bombarded by painful fragments of memories, with consistent fidgeting, evasive eye contact, and a voice that can go from quiet, measured conversation to panicked shouting whenever needed. She offers an incredible emotional range and spends almost the entire play onstage.

The onstage chemistry between the actors is convincing. Mary and love interest Noel (Jake Sanford [COL ’20]) capture the intensity of a first love and the acute awkwardness of teenage romance, while Yurcaba and Knight develop a complex and entertaining rapport within their doctor-patient dynamic.

Some minor characters also offer engaging performances. Erin Luck (SFS ’19) plays the high-maintenance, uppity Zelda—a supposed friend from the main character’s past brought

in to help jog her memory—with comedic exaggeration, and her loud, brash performance offers comic relief exactly when it’s needed.

The subtle use of sound complements the acting and contributes to the emotional pacing of this production. The use of ambient sound and music enhances this emotional ebb and flow; ambient sounds like wind and rain go unnoticed until key moments, during which their sudden absence highlights the somber importance of the actors’ words.

This play makes many subtle transitions between memory and present time, which would be difficult to follow if it weren’t for the relatively fluid set changes. Furniture placement for each scene helps the audience keep track of the many transitions between present time and the various locations of Mary’s memories. For example, the three functioning doors on set allow people to enter and exit smoothly, helping integrate characters from Mary’s present and those entering from her memories. Since these changes are made so clear, the audience is left to focus on the emotional content of the story and not waste time deciphering details of plot.

Apart from the bare essentials—the few pieces of furniture and the functional doors— certain parts of the set design serve only as a visual attempt to represent the play’s main theme. Countless empty door frames hung from the walls represent the many doors in Mary’s mind that lead nowhere and the fact that she can’t escape her past. While these door frames magnify the feeling of being trapped, it may have been more powerful to allow the acting alone to convey that idea. Knight’s acting projects the nervous, neurotic energy of someone who feels restless in her tiny room, constrained by her memories, so the extra door frames remain as unnecessary visual clutter.

This production of Fugue leaves the viewer with more questions than answers. How much do our memories define us? What happens when we’re afraid of what we really want?

If we can’t forgive ourselves, do we risk losing everything, even our minds?

This thought-provoking, in-depth look at desire and regret is worth the twoand-a-half-hour time investment. Fugue is a challenging, impressive way to kick off a Nomadic season.

15

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

LEISURE

By Emily Jaster

Beautiful Reminders of a Grim Future: Mist of the Earth Intersects Art and Science Lisa Helfert

Through skillful integration of art and science, Brazilian artist Denise Milan’s latest exhibition, Mist of the Earth, expertly depicts the importance of nature to humanity. This stunning exhibition, housed in Regents Hall 391, opened on Oct. 18 at Georgetown. In light of the human carelessness that threatens to destroy our environment, Milan has crafted four portfolios—“Paradise,” “Paradise Lost,” “Paradise Regained,” and “Cosmogenesis”—each of which illustrates a different aspect of her argument in defense of nature.

“Paradise” is an aesthetically beautiful collection that depicts the intrinsic and undying connection between nature and human beings.

The collection is a series of photo collages, all of which include bright flora over dark backgrounds, and two of which, “Arasy” and “Tupa,” weave human images amid the plant life. “Arasy” features an infant and nursing mother with soft, red flowers cloaking her arms to symbolize the warm and gentle love that she offers to her child, a metaphor for Mother Nature’s role as both the source and the nurturer of human life.

The images of “Paradise Lost” place audiences at a much greater distance from the subject, an intentional shift from “Paradise.”

The torn, faded landscapes appear as relics, a reminder that, faced by the vicious threat of human activity, nature may be permanently tarnished. The gold leaf that coats the space between photo fragments forces audiences to ponder the implications of human destruction.

Perhaps the gold is the force pushing the images to shreds; the quest for expanding wealth neglects and destroys the natural world. The ambiguous gold woven into the landscapes indicates that nature is far more valuable than man-made riches. In “The Last Life,” the gold leaf conceals the majority of the landscape, symbolizing the trade-off

between the two forms of earthly wealth. The gold and the grassland may be colored with the same, warm tone, but the textures are strikingly different, emphasizing the complexities of nature, which offer a deeper awareness than the monotonous greed of humanity.

From the title to the composition, “Paradise Lost” delivers the solemn revelation of the course of environmental destruction that humans now struggle to reverse.

In response to the saddening cry of “Paradise Lost,” “Paradise Regained” offers a glimmer of hope and potential for change. In a captivating union of contrasts, images of flowers formed from crystals beautifully combine the living and nonliving, the rigid geometric structures together creating something more organic and fluid.

During a panel discussion regarding the exhibition, Milan explained what the crystals in “Paradise Regained” mean to her. The enduring perfection of crystals offers lessons of survival—lessons that she hopes people will take to heart and protect the Earth’s eternal beauty. The crystals, many of which formed alongside the planet Earth, have withstood the test of time, showcasing their beauty for a myriad of generations to come. If humans strive for conservation, then nature, too, may persevere.

The meaning of the flowers, however, is left open. Flowers emerge in the spring from the cold, bleak winter; flowers produce the seeds that enable the next generation of life. Panelist Peter Seligmann, Chairman and CEO of Conservation International, noted how “life begins and ends with flowers.” The flowers of “Paradise Regained” welcome a new birth, a departure from destructive ways, and the perpetuation of life.

The final collection, “Cosmogenesis,” is by far the most abstract of the exhibition. The cloudy images stress movement over definitive form; each image is an instant in time, part of an ever-changing configuration. Of the four images, three are blue, the color of the sea, the sky, and the Earth when viewed from faraway space. One image ripples like the water from which life on Earth began. “Cosmogenesis” tells the story of the origin of life itself, a masterpiece that must be preserved.

“Cosmogenesis” is an analysis comprised of vague, blurry images that seek clarity on phenomena to which no human has borne witness.

Panelist Jerome Friedman, MIT professor and Nobel Laureate in Physics for his discovery of quarks, explained that art and science are not opposites. Rather, they are two different methods for exploring the universe and striving to uncover meaning. “The only difference,” Friedman said, “is that science must provide a precise explanation, while art only needs to provide a general explanation.” Physics requires exact numbers to be true; art is true if it simply captures the essence of the phenomena. In this way, Milan’s work unveils deep truths about nature that science has yet to uncover. “Cosmogenesis” is an expression of exploration, curiosity, and discovery.

The meaning and significance of Milan’s work transcends the aesthetic of the exhibition room. The world is familiar with the data charting the destruction of life on Earth, yet billions of people refuse to change their ways. Milan’s artwork gives heart and soul to nature and the plaguing threats of civilization. During the panel, Seligmann noted how, for change to occur, we must seek to persuade not only minds, but souls. Even if Milan does not persuade every soul with her work, she will certainly garner attention.

Hoya Donors Dig Deep Federal Election Commission data shows how many different people at Georgetown University donated to different presidential campaigns, and how much these donations added up to over the course of the last year.

Donors:

155 The Voice ran a search on the FEC database’s individual contribution search from 8/1/15 to 10/22/16 for individual donations to political committees specific to individual candidates (excluding joint fundraising committees, superpacs, hybrid pacs, any historically soft money accounts, and broader political committees like the DNC). It includes anyone who listed some version of Georgetown University as their employer.

25 4

Amount:

Jeb Bush $12,825

Bernie Sanders $7,284/76

Hillary Clinton $156,964.06

1

1

1

Marco Rubio $500

Gary Johnson $250

Carly Fiorina $50

1

Donald Trump $2,000

1

John Kasich $1,550