The Georgetown Voice, March 31st, 2017

VOICE The Georgetown

School Choice in the District page 8

No Longer ‘Safe From Science’ page 10

March 31, 2017

2

MARCH 31, 2017

staff

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

editor-in-chief Graham Piro Managing editor Caitlyn Cobb

Volume 49 • Issue 14 news

executive editor Ryan miller Features editor Alex bOyd assistant features editor jonny amon news editor isaiah seibert assistant news editors Jake maher, margaret gach

culture

executive editor Brian Mcmahon Leisure editor caitlin mannering assistant leisure editors Gustav Honl-stuenkel, Devon O’Dwyer, ryan mazalatis Sports editor tyler pearre Assistant sports editor alex lewontin

opinion

“Chips a’hoya” by aicha nzie

Editorials

4

‘That Was Racist’ Can’t Be the End of the Conversation Gustav Honl-Stuenkel

5

Stay-at-Home Motherhood, a Choice Worthy of Respect Jessie Yu Campus Speaker’s Anti-Muslim Language Raises Concern Mobashra Tazamal

6 7

In Chartered Waters: School Choice in the District Caitlyn Cobb and Isaiah Seibert

8

contents

No Longer ‘Safe from Science’ Caitlin Mannering

10

Classics Department Translates Letter on 1838 Slave Sale Katya Schwenk

12

National Portrait Gallery Tells Story of American Presidents Sahil Nair

13

A Parable of Indulgence: Raw is a Rare Treat Eman Rahman

14

The Last Days of Judas Iscariot Pushes a Deeper Question Carlos Miranda

15

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.

Executive editor kevin huggard voices editor emma Francois Assistant Voices editors kaei lI, rebecca zaritsky Editorial Board Chair chris dunn Editorial Board jon block, caitlyn cobb, Nick Gavio, kevin Huggard, Alli Kaufman, Kenneth Lee, GRAHAM PIRO, Isaiah seibert, PHillip Steuber, ryan miller

halftime

Leisure editor amy guay assistant leisure editors brynn furey, emily jaster, anne paglia Sports editor Jorge DeNeve Assistant sports editor parker houston

design

Executive editor alli kaufman Spread editor lindsay reilly Photo Editor Isabel lord assistant design editors jake glass, lizz pankova, jack townsend Staff Designers Alexandra Falkner, Margaux Fontaine, Keeho Kang, Sam Lee, Aicha nzie, max thomas, rachel zeide

copy

copy chief Anna Gloor assistant Copy editors audrey bischoff, julia pinney editors Leanne Almeida, Mica Bernhard, Sienna Brancato, Jack Cashmere, Claire Goldberg, Isabel Lord, Isabel Paret, Jack Townsend

online online editor Anne Freeman Podcast editor Danielle Hewitt assistant podcast editor nick gavio social media editor Claire Goldberg

support

associate editors Mike Bergin, Jon block, lilah burke, michael coyne, cassidy jensen

Staff writers

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

MOnica Cho, Brynne Long, Santul nerkar, madelyn rice, Brice russo, Katya Schwenk, Dan Sheehan, Noah Telerski

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

READ More ON GEORGETOWNVOICE.COM news GSC Holds Protest During GAAP Weekend Noah Telerski recaps GSC’s GAAP weekend protest outside the Georgetown University Bookstore to raise awareness about working conditions in Nike factories.

Journalists Discuss Challenges in Trump Era Rebecca Zaritsky covers a recent event sponsored by Georgetown’s undergraduate journalism program titled “Muckraking in an Era of Liars, Trolls, and Swamp Things.”

Halftime Shameless is TV’s Hidden Gem Dajour Evans argues that Showtime’s Shameless is the most underappreciated show on television.

The Simple Solution to the NBA Rest Issue

Chris Dunn presents his solution to the NBA’s rest issue, although the team owners won’t like it.

Sports Georgetown Parts Ways with John Thompson III Tyler Pearre breaks down Georgetown’s decision to part ways with head coach John Thompson III. Follow the Voice on Twitter at @GtownVoice for updates about the search for a new men’s basketball head coach.

3

EDITORIALS

4

MARCH 31, 2017

Change is Required for Club Diversity The Voice has a diversity problem.

We are not alone in this—as the recent op-ed in The Hoya about the lack of diversity in GUASFCU made clear.

Yet when we gathered in our office to discuss our own editorial board’s reaction to the article, we were again reminded that our editorial board is overwhelmingly white.

We don’t now have all the answers to making our magazine more diverse. This editorial is instead the beginning of a larger conversation toward that end. We are in no place to judge others, but we urge every club on campus to take seriously the need for a diverse membership and work to achieve and maintain this standard.

It would be too much for us to prescribe solutions for others. Further, with the wide array of clubs on campus, each with their own specific application process and structure, it would be impossible to offer a single course of action for all.

Other clubs have initiated their own conversations on this topic. Take, for example, the Corp, which has undergone a recent attempt to address the lack of diversity they found within their own organization. We cannot judge the successes of their methods at this time, but the conversation is an important one to begin. Elsewhere on campus, some members of GUSA have recently

recommended that clubs self-report diversity statistics.

This is a worthy first step in the process of confronting each organization’s ability to foster a diverse community, and we commend those who have suggested it.

We at the Voice have been engaged in a running conversation on our own lack of diversity, which we have now made public in an effort to hold ourselves accountable to the same standards we would expect of others.

Part of this process means dealing with our past mistakes. Two years ago, we published a cartoon that depicted two white, male GUSA executive candidates beating a black, male candidate and his female running mate, with the latter two dressed in a horse costume. The drawing intended to satirize, but this intent is irrelevant to the ugliness which resulted. A town hall meeting followed this cartoon’s publication, and many members of the campus community gathered to discuss the drawing’s violent and racist undertones. The Voice apologized and retracted the cartoon, but the damage was done.

Today, the legacy of that cartoon still remains with our organization. Righting those lingering wrongs is an ongoing process. We are mindful of our own shortcomings, and we clearly have to do more. However this change manifests itself, we know we must achieve a significant cultural shift.

The Voice has always prided itself on not having an application. We do not screen out any candidates during an application process, but this does not absolve us of responsibility for our lack of diversity. We have failed to create a welcoming space for all, as evidenced by the makeup of our board. We must now find ways to actively address this problem.

This is not an issue that we believe we can solve in one semester. As a paper with a traditionally liberal slant, we value diversity and inclusion and believe it is necessary for creating meaningful content that gives voice to all members of our community. We recognize that much of our role in this conversation is to listen.

This is not a prescription, nor a cry for help. It is an acknowledgment that the makeup of this editorial board and of this organization in general do not reflect the wider Georgetown community.

The Voice exists to serve our community by reporting on vital topics, providing a platform for student voices, and striving to hold Georgetown’s institutions accountable. We cannot do this without first conducting serious reflection inside the walls of Leavey 424. This is the beginning of a continually evolving conversation. We can, and should, do better.

High Civilian Casualties Draw Concern In March 1969, the Voice was founded in response to the Vietnam War, a conflict that had inflicted heavy civilian casualties. On April 27, 1971, this editorial board wrote, “We are more than tired of hearing about atrocities, massacres, and bloodbaths day after day...”

Forty-eight years since this paper’s founding, U.S. military actions are once again wreaking havoc abroad.

This past week, an airstrike in Mosul killed 200 or more Iraqi citizens. While there is no definitive answer as to who was behind the attack, U.S. officials say there is a “fair chance” that American forces carried out the strike. The attack, a part of the protracted battle to free the city from ISIS control, has caused widespread shock for its sheer death toll. While civilian fatalities have long been a tragic part of America’s military presence in the Middle East, the atrocity in Mosul is, to quote the Los Angeles Times, “one of the deadliest in modern warfare.”

Since 2011, the U.S. has been involved in Operation Inherent Resolve, a coalition effort to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Over the last six years, the coalition, led by the United States and including the United Kingdom, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, has conducted strikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Recent weeks have seen an increase in noncombatant casualties in the conflict. We believe that the United States must consider the effect on civilian lives before engaging in any military operations, with full understanding of the ethical implications of killing the innocent in a war zone.

The attack in Mosul comes in the midst of what is one of the bloodiest months in the American campaign against

ISIS. Airwars, a group that monitors coalition strikes in the Middle East, reports that to date, 2,831 civilians have been killed in U.S.-led coalition strikes against ISIS targets in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, with 618 strikes thus far this month causing an estimated 1,472 civilian deaths.

The Times has reported that 500 bombs and mortars were dropped on the city last week and 880 were used the week before that. In total, there have been over 18,400 munitions used in the battle for Mosul, which started in October of 2016. When it comes to this battle for Mosul, we agree with Pope Francis’s statement that protecting the safety of civilians in the city is an “imperative and urgent obligation,” and call for the United States to take firm actions to reduce the civilian death toll in Iraq and Syria.

In his campaign, President Trump repeatedly advocated for policies in response to terrorism that deprived citizens in these countries the very rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that we defend so adamantly here in the United States. This past month, he has enacted these policies to devastating effect, and is seeking out more ways to undo restrictions made to limit civilian casualties in counterterrorism strikes. We stand firmly against these attempts to loosen essential rules of engagement set in place to protect innocent Iraqis and Syrians.

We also find the lack of interest shown by the student body and the American populace at large in this conflict to be disheartening. In a democracy, it is the role of citizens to hold their government accountable and in check. Amid

all of the different domestic scandals and news reports that have come out of the current administration, it can be easy to lose sight of our actions abroad. The risk of such oversights is especially high since the United States has been involved in a war, in one form or another, in the Middle East for almost the entirety of the 21st century.

Because of this, we emphasize the importance of paying attention to American actions abroad and never forgetting the human cost of our foreign policy.

It should be noted that this problem is not unique to the Trump administration. Since George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan in 2001, the United States has been involved militarily in the Middle East, and civilian casualties have long been an issue. Operation Inherent Resolve started under President Obama, and his administration was in no way immune from criticisms regarding civilian safety. In many ways, we believe, the covert actions taken by the Obama administration in the Middle East opened the door for President Trump’s actions in the region. Still, we believe the actions taking place in Iraq and Syria today represent a dangerous escalation of something unconscionable on any scale.

When this editorial board first took its stance against U.S. actions in Vietnam, it did so because it felt that silence was not an option in the face of such horrors. Today, we feel a similar need to draw attention to American strikes in Iraq and Syria and the damage they have done. American foreign policy must take into account the people that it affects most around the world. When it fails to do so, it falls to American citizens to demand better of their leaders.

5

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

Liberals, myself included, are in a well-documented crisis. Friction between progressives dominates my news feed more than arguments across ideologies. Divides have opened between focus on identity politics and economics, pitting Democratic outsiders versus insiders, Sen. Bernie Sanders versus Secretary Hillary Clinton. Where we go from here, and what the future of the Democratic Party should be, I do not know. However, I do know that Donald Trump picked up millions of votes from the Midwest, a union-clad Democratic stronghold since the time of George H.W. Bush. I am from the Midwest and have heard the stories of people who voted for Trump; they don’t inherently hate minorities, want to subjugate women, or think gay people belong in conversion therapy. In my experience, conversations with these voters often come to the same conclusion: they say or think something that is implicitly racist, and we use that to discount what they are saying wholesale. This doesn’t change anyone’s mind or vote.

Jordan Peele, known for acting in Key & Peele and directing Get Out, said in a March 7 interview with PBS Newshour, “the way we talk about racism is broken … because we think of racism as this unacceptable evil thing that I couldn’t possibly have within myself.” In my experience, the best way to have conversations with people who disagree with me—from a feminist who

SAM LEE

hasn’t heard of intersectionality yet, to someone who has watched the racial composition of their neighborhood change drastically—is not to end the conversation after they say something they don’t even realize is racist. As Peele said, we must try to reframe racism and investigate its roots to truly stamp it out.

Earlier this semester, my friend’s ex-girlfriend, whom I’ll call Jane, referred to both my friend and Barack Obama as “gorillas.” I found this to be overtly racist and inherently despicable, and resolved to confront her about it when I saw her again. The next day, as Jane and I crossed paths, I stopped her, calling her out for her comments, saying they were racist, and telling the friend she was with what Jane had done. Jane persisted that it had been a joke blown wildly out of context by myself and by the people my friend had talked to about it. I repeated that it was racist and continued back to my dorm. Days later, hearing what Jane had told people about the incident,

VOICES

‘That Was Racist’ Can’t Be the End of the Conversation

Carrying On: Voice Staffers Speak

the two of us had fundamentally different interpretations of what happened. Suddenly, I was a screamer, a pusher, a force-you-to-stop-walking-so-I-can-deride-you irate liberal preying on her because of an innocent joke.

The interaction proved productive for neither of us.

We each saw the other in starkly different lights than we each had intended, and neither of us learned anything about the other from the experience. As a white, heterosexual male who strives to be an ally, I feel my role is to communicate my values of liberalism, inclusion, and political correctness to those who look like me and may not be as receptive to the same message from someone they perceive as different. For all intents and purposes, I had failed.

In a fantastic podcast from This American Life, the hosts venture to St. Cloud, Minnesota—a town about two hours from where I live. In their interviews, residents are almost flagrantly racist, discussing the flood of Somali immigrants that has settled in Minnesota. However, their intentions are not what they consider to be racist. Residents mention how they feel they have lost control over their community, how Somali children bully their kids on the playground, and how they have heard that towns across the country are converting to Sharia. What they say is racist, but it comes not from a place of hatred, but rather from fear and uncertainty. Residents are upset that their community is changing and have heard countless falsehoods about what their new community members believe, how they act, and what they want. The residents fall into a natural recourse of shrinking from the unknown.

When having conversations with these white Americans, as will be necessary to bring prevailing political sentiment back to a semblance of liberalism, I urge you not to end your conversations by saying “that was racist.”

Rather, refocus. Look at why the person said what they did and what the social situation leading up to that was, both in the situation preceding the comment, and in the person’s overall background. In St. Cloud, the residents feared for their children and grandchildren because the small town they knew was rapidly changing. Jane thought she was speaking within a private community when she made her comments, and she was raised thinking that with some people, these comments were okay. She was angry, both at her ex-boyfriend and at a president she saw as piloting her country straight into an abyss.

To Jane, to the worried residents of St. Cloud, and to a majority of Trump voters, this is a rational fear, but they feel like no matter how they express it, they will be labeled as racist.

This fear has led to the widespread backlash against political correctness and characterization of liberals as “snowflakes” that was so prevalent in 2016.

I grew up surrounded by people like those in St. Cloud. I know Jane has a diverse and intelligent group of friends. Racism is not the end goal in their comments. So we must ask follow up questions. Why do they think that Somali children are raised to bully? Can they point to evidence against that? Do they know the storied racial histories behind some terms and the effects their words can have? Questions like these try to draw out the reasons behind the racism and can lead to more productive, civil, and empathetic discussions for both sides. For white people, and especially white, straight, liberal men like myself, this is more important than ever.

As a white man, I believe my role as an ally should primarily involve making spaces for the voices that people like me have subjugated for so long. I don’t intend to tell anyone what conversations to have, or how they should have those conversations, and it is my last intention to overstep my boundaries. This is why I write with a specific message, and one that can be especially useful to privileged people striving to be allies: We cannot let “that was racist” be the end of the argument.

By Gustav Honl-Stuenkel He is a freshman in the College.

VOICES

6

MARCH 31, 2017

Stay-At-Home Motherhood, a Choice Worthy of Respect

Would you rather be married or have a successful career? Be honest. Now imagine a typical female college student. She’s average height and has long hair. Her guilty pleasure is watching Vampire Diaries and spending hours roaming the aisles at Target. She also, however, knows four languages, has a passion for international law, and is on the board of several campus organizations. What are her highest aspirations? To be a stay-at-home mom.

I’m already imagining the flow of unpleasantness your neurons must be carrying right now at this made up scenario as you ask, “Why is she wasting her education?” and “That can’t be all she wants to do.” But it is. And what’s so wrong with that? Why are people so personally offended, particularly in elite college settings? Why is there a difference in reactions when one hears she’s attending Queens Community College as opposed to Harvard University?

Maybe it’s because people don’t respect community colleges as much as they do higherranked universities, so they don’t expect as much out of their students. Maybe it’s because the respect people hold for community colleges and for stay-at-home mothers is a facade made of statements like, “WikiLeaks came from a community college graduate” and “being a mom must be super hard.”

Another possibility is that they do not see “mother” fitting into a full-time job category.

It’s more of a responsibility, a natural role. It lasts for a few years, possibly a decade, and then ends. In that case, being a mother is not seen as a full career; it’s not equated with the longevity and monetary reward that a job offers. It earns a negative salary.

A third possibility could be that a woman’s college career—when not put towards a traditional job—is considered a waste of education and resources. Why would she go into that much debt if the investment doesn’t have the intention of making more money or helping the world?

All of these are status quo explanations that most people seem to agree are true and fair.

Sitting at Lau, I turned to one of my male friends and asked him what he would think of a girl who comes to Georgetown and is, say, a computer science major with the main post-graduation dream of being a stay-at-home mom. He took a step backward and rambled, “That’s cool but, but, but [insert tortuous fluff of him trying to not say “the wrong thing”] there must be more that she wants or can do.”

Being a mother is not seen as a whole. I’ve witnessed this for myself at my extremely competitive high school in New York City and at Georgetown, as well as through conversations held with my friends, all at top ranked colleges. Being a stay-at-home mom is not a welcome occupation.

Accepted is the girl without an education, the girl whose future doesn’t look as bright, who aims for the low dream of stay-at-home mom. But for the educated, motivated, passionate woman, that final goal is simply unacceptable. This is wrong.

Being a mother entails being in charge of at least one other human being’s fate from their education, their worldview, and their future health (which could correlate to their lifespan). It means being burdened with all their worries, even when your own are almost too much for you to handle. Imagine having a boss who never stops complaining, the negative debby-downer. Now imagine not having the option to just say, “Hey, I gotta go work on something else,” and instead having to constantly be present, listen to her complaints, fix her food when she complains of hunger, wipe her butt when she says she has to poop, and think of ways to calm her down when she starts screaming.

As a parent, you teach your child everything they know in their first few years, more than an education covers. You not only need to be educated in terms of IQ, but in emotional quotient (EQ) as well to pass onto your child. Your knowledge continues onto your children, who will in turn also help the world.

If education is viewed simply as a money-making tool, then yes, attending a university to become a stay-at-home mom may be seen as a waste. But this is a pessimistic view of education.

Education is a true standard of the love for learning and a genuine interest in learning the intangible as well as practical skills. That shouldn’t be seen as a waste. Education makes everyone a better citizen and better able to make informed decisions regardless of their job.

And while I say over and over, stay-at-home mom, feel free to substitute it for men and stayat-home dads. They also have, perhaps more so, a stigma against this dream. However, they too are entitled to, and indeed, needed for this full-time job of raising a child.

The next time someone tells you she or he wants to be a stay-at-home parent, don’t make them feel so self-conscious that they have to add that they don’t want to do it forever. Don’t make them explain what “actual” career they’re going to go into once their kids are grown. Don’t ask, “What about your education?” because they are using it to influence and impact their community and home in miraculous ways. And lastly, don’t make an exception for elite college students.

Just because a person is receiving a $60,000 a year education and not using it in the traditional, expected, “professional” consulting, finance, law school route, doesn’t mean it’s going to waste.

Just because they’re cleaning diapers, cooking meals, and reading to their kids doesn’t mean they aren’t using their education to teach them history, economics, languages, and more. The foundation of our future is built by those who raise our next generation.

By Jessie Yu She is a sophomore in the College.

ELIZABETH PANKOVA

7

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

ELIZABETH PANKOVA

I am a Muslim, an immigrant, and a woman of color. On the campus of Georgetown University last month, I was silenced in the name of free speech.

On Feb. 28, the Georgetown University College Republicans (GUCR), in partnership with the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, invited Nonie Darwish, an author and critic, to speak on campus about women and Islamic law. Darwish, an Egyptian-American and non-Muslim, has publicly called for the annihilation of 1.6 billion human beings because they’re Muslim.

Perhaps I was naive to assume that a prestigious university such as Georgetown, where I research Islamophobia, would avoid inviting speakers who reinforce negative stereotypes and perpetuate false allegations about any religion—especially now, when hate crimes against the Muslim and Jewish communities are increasing exponentially, including cemetery desecrations, bomb threats, shootings, and mosque arsons. In late January, a shooter walked into a Quebec City mosque and murdered seven individuals as they prayed. Just a couple of weeks ago, an unidentified armed assailant walked up to a Sikh man’s driveway in Washington state, yelled, “Go back to your own country,” and killed him.

On campus, GUCR advertised the event as “Women in Sharia: A Conversation with Nonie Darwish.” The impression was that a historian of women in Islam and Islamic law or a theologian of Islam would be presenting the talk. Nonie Darwish is neither. Nor has she ever lived in a country ruled by Islamic law. Instead, she is an anti-Islam activist and affiliated with the anti-Muslim movement’s “most visible and influential figurehead.”

The onus should never be placed on the vilified, but the vilifier. To invite a speaker to disparage a religion, and then call on followers of that religion to challenge the speaker’s claims, is an offense that should not stand on any university campus.

But my questions were ignored, and my concerns were minimized. I was met with a solid brick wall. In an email, the GUCR board downplayed Darwish’s extremist agenda as “unfavorable comments” and her anti-Muslim views as “over-generalizations of the religion.”

Clearly, the organizers were aware of the nature of their invited speaker’s plan. GUCR’s board told me and the Georgetown Muslim community to attend the event and “challenge the speaker.”

The onus should never be placed on the vilified, but the vilifier. To invite a speaker to disparage a religion, and then call on followers of that religion to challenge the speaker’s claims, is an offense that should not stand on any university campus. Rather than engage with me, GUCR dismissed my concerns and implied that I, and the Muslim community on campus, do not matter.

For GUCR, calling for the annihilation of 1.6 billion Muslims is fair game at Georgetown University as long as it’s veiled under the guise of free speech.

Rather than organize an event with the university’s Muslim student and faculty body, the group decided who should speak for and about Islam and Muslims. If a Muslim organization invited a speaker who called for the annihilation of the West, or if a Jewish group invited a speaker who called for the annihilation of Christianity, would they be protected by “free speech?” Or would they rightfully constitute “hate speech?” When it comes to Islam and Muslims, it seems there is no line. Nothing anyone can say about Muslims seems to register as hate speech. Our identity, our values, our history, our faith, are all up for discussion, while our voices are actively silenced. This is oppression.

Inviting Darwish invites her ideas. Her claims, based on visceral racism and bigotry, perpetuate the falsehoods that Islam has no leaders, that Muslims are enemies of the West who do not belong and should be removed, and that there is an inherent and irrevocable clash between Islam and the West. These form a message that is inexcusable and diametrically opposed to the Jesuit values that Georgetown University espouses.

Darwish’s presence on campus added sharp insult to painful and fresh injury. Such events only bestow legitimacy on racism, xenophobia, sexism, and hatred in all forms in a place that I and many students deem sacred and safe: a university.

Opinions expressed belong to the writer of the piece and do not express the views or opinions of their employer.

In 2010, during my time at the College of William and Mary, I attended one of her talks. I sat through an hour of verbal assault as she exclaimed that Islam promotes honor killings, no churches exist in Muslim countries, and Shari’a is oppressive.

These are verifiably untrue statements. I couldn’t fathom how the promotion of such hateful, baseless, and unacademic views were permitted in a formal setting on a university campus.

In an effort for my voice and the voices of concerned Muslim students on Georgetown’s campus with whom I spoke to be heard, I wrote to the GUCR. I engaged with the event’s organizers, hoping they would understand the danger of bringing to campus a speaker who makes false claims and foments anti-Muslim sentiment.

By Mobashra Tazamal She is a Senior Research Fellow at The Bridge Initiative at Georgetown University.

VOICES

Campus Speaker’s Anti-Muslim Language Raises Concern

8

MARCH 31, 2017

In Chartered Waters School Choice in the District

By Caitlyn Cobb and Isaiah Seibert “We certainly are keenly aware of the fact that you have choices and your children can go anywhere,” Chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) Antwan Wilson said to concerned students, parents, and teachers gathered at a community conversation in Alice Deal Middle School on March 27. Students, teachers, and parents sat at cafeteria tables to ask questions about overcrowding, school resources, and the future of DCPS. Wilson spent much of his town hall address discussing DCPS’ Capital Commitment Strategic Plan. The plan, which was developed in 2012, consisted of five goals DCPS hoped to achieve by 2017, including raising graduation, achievement, and school satisfaction rates. DCPS also sought to increase enrollment in its schools, an attempt to reverse a decades-long trend.

According to DCPS statistics, traditional public schools increased enrollment by seven percent between the 2011-12 and 2016-17 school years. These modest gains contrast with charter school enrollment, which increased 24 percent over the same period.

Charter schools are public schools that run independent of the local school district. They are part of a nationwide movement known as school choice, which attempts to give families a greater say in where they educate their children. Traditional public schools enroll students assigned to them based on residency, whereas charter schools accept students via a lottery system. Charters schools have been particularly popular in the district. According to The Washington Post, there were 8,640 students on charter school waitlists in April 2016. Many of these students were on multiple waitlists.

The volume of waitlisted students indicates a strong demand for school choice options in the district, Rachel Sotsky, executive director of Serving Our Children, wrote in an email to the Voice. “This is particularly important in Wards 7 and 8, where 46 percent of our applicants live. The D.C. OSP expands educational options for low income families.”

Serving Our Children operates the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (D.C. OSP), the district’s federally-funded voucher program. Conservatives, including President Donald Trump, often support private school vouchers—scholarships given to families to offset private school tuition—as part of an expanded school choice system. Trump’s proposed budget would cut funding for the Department of Education by 14 percent, and would dedicate $1.2 billion to expanding voucher programs across the United States.

Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), who cannot vote, opposes the expansion of the federally funded D.C. private school voucher program. “Federal funding for education in the district should reinforce the hard work of our city, parents, and residents, who have shown the nation how to build a fully accountable public school choice system,” she said to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform on March 8 during discussions to reauthorize the program.

Since the 1970s, the D.C. Council has had the ability to create a voucher program, but council members have chosen instead to improve its public schools, Norton told the committee.

Nevertheless, Republicans in Congress created a D.C. voucher program in 2004, and have continued to push for its expansion.

Local government has largely opposed the D.C. voucher program, instead favoring continued investment in school choice through charters. The struggle to provide education for all D.C. students, particularly at-risk students and those from low income backgrounds, is characterized by this unusual dual charter-traditional public school system and underlying inequalities across the district.

The origins of the district’s charter school system, as with its voucher program, lie not with local government, but with Congress. The D.C. School Reform Act of 1996 created the charter school system with two governing bodies: the previously established D.C. State Board of Education and the new D.C. Public Charter School Board (D.C. PCSB). Together, these

two chartering boards have the power to set up 20 charter schools each year either as startups or by converting private and public schools.

Since 1996, charter school enrollment has drastically increased. According to D.C. PCSB data, charter schools educated only 0.2 percent of the total public school population in the 1996-97 school year; by last year, the statistic had increased to 45 percent.

Today, charter schools play a larger role in D.C. public education than in most other U.S. cities, with towering over the 2013-14 national average of five percent enrollment reported by the National Center for Education Statistics. The district currently has two public school systems of about the same size, with 118 public charter schools and 115 traditional public schools, as reported by the respective school systems.

Local school boundaries, which DCPS redrew in 2014 for the first time in four decades, determine which DCPS school each student will attend. Some schools are more sought after than others and are consequently overcrowded, such as Ward 3’s Woodrow Wilson High School and Alice Deal Middle School.

“Supporters of charters advocate them because they create choice for students who wouldn’t otherwise have that choice for better education,” Douglas Reed, a government professor at Georgetown, said.

To help make charter schools more accessible to local families, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced a proposal on Jan. 30 for a charter school “walkability preference.” Under this optional initiative, charter schools can give preferential admission to students living less than half-a-mile away. The proposal will go into effect for the 2018-19 school year.

“My administration will continue to expand opportunity and make unprecedented investments in public education so that students from every neighborhood, in every ward are set up for success,” Bowser said in a Jan. 30 speech at D.C. Bilingual Public Charter School.

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

A city task force considered requiring all charter schools to adopt a policy of weighted admissions for neighborhood children in 2012, but found that implementing the policy would disproportionately hinder school-aged children in the predominantly black Wards 7 and 8 in admissions to competitive charter schools.

D.C. PCSB declined to comment on the walkability proposal because the legislation is yet to be drafted.

Charter school admissions are often high-stakes because, as a whole, D.C. charter schools perform better than their traditional public counterparts. D.C. charter elementary and high schools outperformed DCPS schools on the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) standardized test in 2016. Recent studies find performance to be more consistent between the two nationally.

Advocates for charter schools point to the district as a positive case study of public school choice. Critics counter that structural issues within D.C. charter schools lead to some negative trends. For example, D.C. charter schools’ rate of expulsion was 72 times greater than in DCPS schools in the 2011-12 school year, as reported in a review of D.C. school data by The Washington Post. Opponents to charter schools explain this as a pattern of unaccountable charter schools pushing students into the DCPS system, which is required to educate all students.

Charter school policies are thought to encourage high expulsion rates, but both school systems exhibit racial bias in student discipline. While expulsion and suspension rates have recently decreased across the district, inequalities persist. Black students in both public school systems are suspended almost seven times more frequently than their white classmates, according to The Washington Post.

There are also racial disparities in student performance.

In a comparative look at different U.S. public school systems, The New York Times found that sixth graders in the richest school districts across the U.S. performed an average of four grades ahead of students in the poorest districts, with gaps in performance by race within each district. In both D.C. traditional and charter public schools, white sixth graders performed almost three grades ahead, while Hispanic and black students performed 1.4 and 2.2 grades behind, respectively.

Further driving performance gaps in the district’s schools is its underlying geographic racial divide, Sabrina Wesley-Nero, a professor in the Education, Inquiry, and Justice program, wrote in an email to the Voice.

The district is the nation’s sixth most segregated city, according to a FiveThirtyEight analysis by Nate Silver. Census-based maps show an obvious racial divide, with white population density concentrated in the northwest and black population density concentrated in the southeast.

“Residential segregation greatly impacts racial and economic diversity in schools. The district’s broader historical context on issues of race, class, and governance cannot be divorced from any analysis of contemporary trends and policies,” Wesley-Nero wrote in an email to the Voice.

Socio-economic makeup varies between the charter and traditional public school systems, but low income students form the majority in both. Students receiving free or reduced-price lunches in the 2014-15 school year made up 82 percent of the student body in charter schools as compared to 76 percent in DCPS, both of which are above all public schools’ national average of 51 percent in 2013, according to The New York Times.

Voucher proponents advertise the program as a way to increase educational opportunities for low income students. The average household income of participating families is $20,472, and nearly all recipients are students of color. The federally-funded D.C. voucher program currently serves 1,154 students, according to Serving Our Children’s website.

9

Serving Our Children announced Feb. 24 that they plan on expanding the voucher system significantly in the upcoming school year, The Washington Post reported.

“Given the unique relationship between the district and the Federal government, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (D.C. OSP), which is strictly a D.C. program, is funded separately from other education programs under the purview of the U.S. Department of Education,” Sotsky wrote. “Nonetheless, we anticipate that this administration will support expansion of the D.C. OSP, given its strong support for school choice.”

Pro-voucher camps in national politics have demonstrated increasing zeal for school choice, particularly in Trump’s proposed budget. Recently, hard-line conservatives in Congress have promoted the expansion of the D.C. voucher program on a drastic scale. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced a bill last year that would convert the district’s entire education system to a voucher program.

The bill has not passed the Senate Finance Committee.

Many local officials oppose the district’s voucher program, though. Eight council members sent a letter to Congress on March 7 requesting that vouchers be phased out, rather than expanded. They asked for funds to be devoted to existing public education in the district, arguing that the voucher program is an ineffective and inequitable way to promote better education for disadvantaged students.

“I’m 100 percent opposed to public dollars going to private schools like this,” D.C. Council Member David Grosso (I-At Large), who has spoken forcefully against the voucher program for years, said in The Washington Post.

The 2010 evaluation of the district’s voucher program concluded that there is no evidence that low income students in the program perform better than they would in a traditional public school. This study and the council members’ letter both cited additional analyses conducted on voucher programs across the U.S., none of which found conclusive evidence that they work to bridge the gaps left in public education systems.

The school choice movement attempts to solve educational inequality by providing alternatives to the existing public education systems, but critics argue this draws resources away from where they are needed. In the district, educational inequalities in both systems remain despite the unusual success and collaboration of charter and traditional schools.

These inequalities also plague voucher schools. A Washington Post investigation found that very few voucher students attend elite high schools, and many attend schools almost entirely filled with voucher participants.

Wesley-Nero said that D.C. education policies reflect the need for more equitable access to high-performing schools.

“One of the goals that is evident is to create quality and effective options for families throughout the system as opposed to having a few brilliant gems being overrun and largely inaccessible to the majority of the student population,” she wrote.

Percentage of D.C. students in charter schools 1996-1997 school year

2015-2016 school year

0.2%

45%

D.C. PCSB DATA

DCPS vs. charter schools enrollment change

2011-12 to 2016-17 school years

DCPS

7%

DCPS DATA

Charters

24%

D.C. PCSB DATA

10

MARCH 31, 2017

No Longer ‘Safe from Science’ Dissecting science visibility and increasing course requirements

By Caitlin Mannering

Graphic: Jake glasS

When most people hear the words “Georgetown University,” they think of international relations, government, and business, headlined by the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and the McDonough School of Business. Few think of science, but perceptions may soon change with the current proposal to implement a science requirement for all undergraduate students.

“We have outstanding, nationally recognized undergraduate education in the sciences and graduate education in the sciences on the main campus and at the medical center. It is somehow inconceivable that we’re not known for that,” said Heidi Elmendorf, director of undergraduate students and studies in the biology department.

However, for students looking for a school that is going to give them the highest quality undergraduate science education, Georgetown is well-known. Thirty percent of students applying to the College applied specifically to be a science major, and 17 percent applied to be biology majors in particular, according to an email from James Colman, Senior Associate Director in the Office of Undergraduate Admissions. Although the 15 percent acceptance rate in the sciences is comparable to the 15 percent acceptance rate of the College as a whole, the biology majors’ acceptance rate is slightly lower, at 13 percent, indicating that some sciences are more difficult routes to acceptance.

There is widespread support for the inclusion of a science requirement among professors in the SFS, where the proposal originated, Elmendorf said. “The individuals in

charge of the curriculum at those schools recognize that in this day and age that if you’re going to be involved in the work that the SFS is preparing its students to enter into that an understanding not so much of science facts … but the epistemology of science [is necessary].”

An understanding of how to make discoveries, what a discovery really means, and the scientific process represents the crucial intersection of science with both public policy and business, Elmendorf said. “They’re not expected to be the experts, but they are expected to be able to hear, interpret, engage in meaningful dialogue with scientific experts.”

This requirement is proposed to consist of science courses housed within the SFS. To make room for the new courses, proposals include reducing the number of economics classes from four to three and reducing the number of required classes in a major by two. Another proposal suggests keeping the 120-credit requirement for a degree, but reducing the 40-course requirement to 36-38 so that courses that are not three credits will be more meaningful for graduation.

“The classes would, like Science, Technology, and International Affairs (STIA), involve social and policy issues and we are confident that SFS students would find them valuable as a result. But they would all be heavy on the science side–this would not be ‘science lite,’” Daniel Byman, professor and senior associate dean for undergraduate affairs in the SFS, wrote in an email to the Voice.

The science requirement in the College would also shift under current proposals. Currently, the requirement includes

two math or science courses. Students can also use Advanced Placement credit to fulfill the requirement. The current proposal would separate the science and math requirements into two distinct requirements, and students would no longer be able to use AP credit to place out, Elmendorf said.

According to Elmendorf, it is expected that the new science courses in the SFS will be taught by new faculty they will hire specifically for the SFS. The courses included in the College expansion and new requirement for the MSB will largely be offered by faculty from the biology, chemistry, physics, and human science departments.

The science requirement would be the most major curriculum change since the 2016 diversity requirement. It would impact not only hundreds of students but faculty as well. The details of the requirement are still up for debate, and the proposal has yet to be formally approved.

The plan to include science courses for all undergraduates has been in the works for years, but the large volume of students the new classes would enroll has been a practical barrier, David Edelstein, a professor in the SFS, wrote in an email to the Voice. “These practical challenges have, I think, prevented the implementation of a science requirement in the past.”

“It is being proposed now because the capacity to understand science and its interactions with international affairs has become a vital aspect of our students’ knowledge,” Mitch Kaneda, associate dean and director of undergraduate programs of the SFS, wrote in an email to the Voice.

11

CLE

FOO

AN

CYBERSECURITY

ENE

RGY

D S ECU RIT Y

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

IMMUNIZATIO

N

Graphic: Jake glass & intel free press

The SFS offers a science-centric major in STIA, but it has not required a general science requirement in the past. “​In my view, the science requirement is long overdue. The SFS, like many institutions with a liberal arts emphasis, often downplayed the importance of science,” Byman said.

Conversations around the requirement would come just one year after the sciences at Georgetown received a $1.2 million investment from alumni Joe Zimmel (COL ’75) and Alison Lohrfink Blood (MSB ’81), who are both members of Georgetown’s Board of Regents. “[Zimmel’s] been engaged with the university long enough to recognize that giving students scholarship money is necessary, but not sufficient,” Elmendorf said.

Instead of scholarship money, the investment funds the Regents Science Scholars Program, which is specifically designed to help increase diversity in the sciences by addressing the lack of underserved and first-generation college students who are able to pursue and complete science degrees.

The program is an extension of the Community Scholars Program (CSP) which provides support for a multicultural group of first-generation college students. The CSP is usually only able to accommodate 50 students, but with the donation, will expand its capacity to 65.

“Diversity in science is essential for Georgetown, for anybody, because I think it’s our moral obligation to provide the best quality education to individuals regardless of the family, financial, or socio-economic circumstances in which they were born,” Elmendorf said. “The idea that we would

somehow not be able to live up to that promise feels very non-Jesuit of us.”

Science also benefits from a diversity of practitioners because it allows for new and diverse perspectives. People who think differently than those who came before them are the ones able to bring about paradigm-shifting research, Elmendorf said. The best way to enable people to think differently is by bringing a broader breadth of perspective into the process, she added.

The program seeks to provide ongoing support in the summers between first and second year and second and third year with online coursework. “Science courses are hierarchical. If you struggled in General Chemistry or in Foundations of Biology, you’re going to enter second-year coursework here still at a deficit…and that just perpetuates,” Elmendorf said.

The summer online coursework enables students to review overarching concepts from past courses that will recur in more advanced classes. Peers and professors are available to help, and students are free to complete their work anywhere, at any time.

The fate of science is not only becoming an increasingly relevant issue at Georgetown, but in the country as a whole.

The March for Science will take place on April 22, Earth Day, in D.C. and other major cities around the world. Inspired by the success of the Women’s March on Jan. 21, the idea for the march originated with a small group of scientists who were concerned about the Trump administration’s distrust of scientific findings. Although the Hoyas March

for Science will not be officially recognized by Georgetown University, at least 500 attendees from the Georgetown community, including students, professors, faculty, and alumni, are expected to attend, said Elmendorf, who is organizing the Georgetown group.

Though some in the scientific community are concerned that the march unnecessarily politicizes science, others argue that science and politics are inevitably intertwined as the administration in office influences funding for programs such as National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Elmendorf said the Hoyas March for Science hopes to emphasize widespread opposition to the recently proposed science cuts from the new administration. Members from both the College Republicans and the College Democrats will be participating.

For Elmendorf, the implications of the curriculum changes, the focus on diversity, and the march indicate the importance of science throughout every aspect of everyone’s lives.

As she explains, science is not simply a course to muddle through one semester, but something that directly affects the government and policy of the country.

Georgetown’s goal going forward is to develop a better set of curricular and co-curricular opportunities in the sciences, Elmendorf said. She hopes that the change will help science students understand more about advocacy and government students understand how science shapes policy.

12

Classics Department Translates Letter on Sale of 272 Slaves

MARCH 31, 2017

By Katya Schwank

A group of around 20 students and faculty from the Classics department recently finished an English translation of an 1836 Latin letter from the Society of Jesus’ headquarters in Rome.

The translation revealed that the university did not comply with the Jesuits’ provisions for the sale of 272 slaves that saved Georgetown from bankruptcy in 1838.

The then-Superior General of the Society of Jesus, Jan Roothaan, addressed the letter to the Provincial Father at Georgetown, William McSherry. Within it, Roothaan outlined a set of stipulations for the sale of the slaves. He wrote that the university should not use the funds from the sale to pay off its debt and that the slaves should be assisted in their continued practice of Catholicism. The university did not follow either of Roothaan’s demands.

“What struck me when reading it … was Roothaan's unhappiness about this affair,” Josiah Osgood, a Classics professor involved in the project, wrote in an email to the Voice.

The letter, translated between Feb. 10 and March 24, underwent a painstaking translation process involving around a dozen undergraduate students along with handwriting experts, Annee Lyons (COL ’18), a student involved in the translation, said. Their work on this letter is a part of the university’s broader movement to address its history with slavery.

The letter has added to the knowledge surrounding the 1838 sale, which became a focal point of the national conversation on the history of slavery at colleges and universities in 2015. University President John DeGioia responded to this national attention by creating the Working Group on Slavery, Memory, and Reconciliation and later engaging in dialogue with the descendants of slaves that Georgetown sold, notably announcing preferential admissions to descendants. The university has sought to continue this reconciliation through original research.

The Georgetown Slavery Archive, a recommendation of the working group, launched last year and presently hosts 85 documents relating to the 1838 sale of slaves, including

Keeho Kang

advertisements, financial statements, and speeches. It also contains photos of Frank Campbell, a slave sold by the university that the New York Times highlighted in early March.

The Georgetown Slavery Archive added the original letter with its translation to its digital collections on March 28. Adam Rothman, a principal researcher for the archive and history professor, was responsible for bringing the Latin letter to the attention of the Classics department. “[The department’s] participation shows how faculty and students can contribute to Georgetown's Slavery, Memory, and Reconciliation effort from whatever field of knowledge they happen to be devoted to,” Rothman wrote in an email to the Voice.

It’d be so interesting to see what “secrets are still left in those letters

”

that haven’t been translated yet.

Lyons and Rothman said that more work remains for both the Slavery Archive and the university as a whole. “I hope it serves as an inspiration and model for faculty and students in other departments and programs to find creative and appropriate ways to participate,” Rothman wrote.

The university will hold a Liturgy of Remembrance, Contrition, and Hope on April 18, at which time Freedom and Remembrance Halls will be formally renamed Isaac Hawkins Hall and Anne Marie Becraft Hall, respectively. Before November 2015, the halls were named for Jesuits involved in the sale and were changed in response to student protests. Hawkins was the first slave listed in the 1838 sale and Becraft was a woman of color who began a school for girls in Georgetown during the early 1800s.

Osgood and Lyons also plan to continue translating additional letters from Latin to English.

Osgood said the university still has a large collection of untranslated letters sent among the Jesuits and to Rome.

“What was incredible, as a Classics student, was practically applying the years I’ve studied Latin,” Lyons said. “It’d be so interesting to see what secrets are still left in those letters that haven’t been translated yet.”

For Danny O’Sullivan (COL ’20), another student involved, Classics provides the unique ability to contend with Georgetown’s past and shape university policy moving forward.

“I wasn’t ready for the silence that came after we first read through the Latin,” O’Sullivan wrote in an email to the Voice. “It wasn’t the usual silence that precedes an attempt to put Latin thoughts into English words. It was the silence that comes when emotions rob you of speech.

Translating is a challenge. Translating in honor of 272 people and their descendants … is a responsibility beyond words.”

13

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

National Portrait Gallery Tells Story of America Through Reopened America’s Presidents Installation

By Sahil Nair

Sahil nair

With its reopening and new additions, the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery’s America’s Presidents exhibition traces the legacy of the American presidency through 44 holders of the office.

After closing for renovation on Feb. 26, the exhibition reopened on March 23 and will be open through Sept. 4. The popular collection now includes two portraits of 44th President Barack Obama by Chuck Close. Alongside the Presidential portrait collection, the current installation also includes Hindsight is Always 2020, an independent exhibition by artist R. Luke DuBois, in collaboration with the American Presidency Project of the University of California Santa Barbara. Together, these two installations inform a reflection on America’s highest office.

The layout itself harbours a great deal of commentary on individuals and the overall institution of the American presidency. David Ward, the National Portrait Gallery’s senior historian and director of scholarly programs, pointed out the ovular shape of the installation’s layout, noting that “The presidency is a constant dialogue between the past and present,” with no finite beginning or end.

The dialogue of the presidency is a central focus of America’s Presidents, in great part due to the work of DuBois, showcased in the center of the exhibit. In Hindsight is Always 2020, DuBois created word clouds, mobilizing phrases from the State of the Union addresses of 41 presidents. Each president’s cloud is presented in order of word frequency and stylized as an eye chart. The end result is a bold and lucid snapshot of the dialogue of each presidency, with rhetoric unique to each leader and his time in office. The words serve as an aesthetically pleasing and educational complement to the portraits of each president, tracing a complete picture of their legacies through the installation.

At the nation’s inception, the stature of the presidency as an office was nowhere near the magnitude of today. True power rested with the people and Congress—Americans were scared of a strong president, viewing such a leader as akin to a monarch. In the 19th century especially, the country had a great many “forgettable” or “mediocre” presidents, per contemporary rankings. Still, viewers will find that the space is relatively egalitarian, with the same amount of wall space devoted to James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson as is devoted to Franklin D. Roosevelt or Thomas Jefferson, and all in chronological order.

Though the presidency has spanned well over 200 years of American aesthetics, one medium has remained constant— almost all portraits have been done in oil. The preferred medium for presidential portraiture, oil is not damaged by light, and therefore oil paintings can stay on view for a long time. The public also views this artistic style as the most dignified way to depict America’s leaders, Ward said.

However, there are notable examples of deviation from the typical styles and mediums on display in the installation. Bill Clinton’s portrait, painted by artist Chuck Close, was completed as an oil on canvas, staying true to the typical medium. However, Close paints in a much more abstract style, unusual for a presidential portrait. Close began by choosing a photograph of the former president, one used for a 2005 cover of New York Magazine. For the painting itself, Close superimposed a grid on the photograph and canvas, and added colorful abstract sections into each square. Former President Clinton’s portrait is not the only notable work that deviates from the classical portraiture style. President Obama joins the ranks of the 43 preceding presidencies for the first time with another Close work. Close

created a paired piece of Obama, utilizing woodburytype in two portraits, displayed side by side.

A great deal of variety can be found even within the marriage of classical portraiture and oil on canvas. Consider the juxtaposition of Richard Nixon’s portrait as painted by American great Norman Rockwell with Adrian Lamb’s copy of Philip Alexius de László’s portrait of Theodore Roosevelt.

Roosevelt sits upright, hands holding a riding crop and gloves, with a muted palette and little saturation of colors. Nixon, on the other hand, stares thoughtfully into the eyes of the viewer as he relaxes, head resting on hand. Rockwell uses deeper contrast and a warmer palette to paint Nixon as wistful and approachable, a divergence from the regal, distant portrait of Roosevelt.

Portraiture has the ability to lend a warm personification to the worst of American politics while turning a larger-than-life leader into a distant figure.

The National Portrait Gallery’s establishment in 1962 makes it a relatively new museum. The presidential portrait collection predates the Gallery itself, as it began as an effort to find paintings of the presidents in 1950, per Brandon Fortune, chief curator of the National Portrait Gallery. Portraits within the collection cycle in and out of display within the Gallery as part of this installation. For example, on Sept. 22, Gilbert Stuart’s famed “Lansdowne” portrait of George Washington will be back on view in the newly refurbished America’s Presidents gallery, after 18 months of careful conservation and analysis.

America’s Presidents is the nation’s only complete collection of presidential portraits outside the White House. In this sense, the installation is truly rooted in the Portrait Gallery’s mission to tell the American story through the individuals who have shaped it.

Sahil nair

National Portrait gallery

Sahil nair

14

MARCH 31, 2017

LEISURE

IMDB

A Parable of Indulgence: Raw Is a Rare Treat

by Eman Rahman

I

ndulgence is, in many ways, the bedrock of college life. It’s also something easy to get used to. Living away from home and family for the first time affords its freedoms but also hazards its anxieties. Rules and routine no longer dictate; only oppressive partying does. For some, the adjustment takes a little bit of time until an individual finds herself comfortable in a new status quo not too different from what she always knew, affording minor tweaks to entertain the staples of college life. For others, there’s a huge shift in persona. Raw is the story of this shift.

Julia Ducournau’s feature directorial debut is a parable of a freshman trying to find her way. Justine is brilliant and innocent, is new to a French veterinary school, and has always lived life as a vegetarian. When subjected to the mythical hazing rituals of this institution’s student body, she’s initially horrified by the prospect of having to eat a raw rabbit kidney.

When her upperclassman sister Alexia assures her that they all do it, Justine reluctantly complies, meekly cognizant of a need to fit in. She ends up eating meat for the first time, unlocking a primal hunger and lust within her.

Both her carnivorous evolution and her relationship with her sister are the subject of the film. She slowly transforms from being force-fed a rabbit kidney at initiation to secretly gnawing into raw chicken breast to eventually developing a taste for human flesh. As Justine comes to terms with her newfound cravings, so too does she grow and evolve into a fully realized sexual being, tumbling down the rabbit hole of womanhood at a frantic pace. But that’s the analogy, isn’t it? She indulges herself, and the consequences become increasingly harmful, yet she also becomes more confident in her own feminism. As this once aloof star student happily gives in to every sinful temptation that comes her way, she finds herself caught between euphoria over her latest epiphany and resentment toward her sister for awakening the beast within her. Sunk down beneath the surface of Raw is a tale of two sisters rocking on the brink of hysteria as fate ties them together in these curious, comingof-age, catastrophic fantasies told by the fiercely feminist cinematic narrative of sisterhood.

It’s sometimes lovely and sometimes scary. They’re sisters and they’re rivals. At the heart of Raw sits this dichotomy: a relationship that should feel safe but isn’t.

Raw is a gruesome film, for sure, with no shortage of squirm-inducing imagery (they handed out barf bags to viewers entering the screening). However, Ducournau has a brilliant command over the impact of the film’s frights and gore. In a film about sexually charged cannibalism, filled with realistically gory makeup, the most uncomfortable scene was somehow the one in which Justine is scratching a rash on her body. The composition of this scratching scene is a new kind of unsettling and, juxtaposed against the objectively more violent instances throughout the film, it stands as a touchstone for the viewer’s identification with the character. This is not only scary and uncomfortable for Justine, but also the audience. Where each moment stands on the spectrum of shock for Justine dictates where it stands on that spectrum for the audience. So when she’s confidently “indulging,” there’s little shock or even psychological discomfort.

Furthermore, Ducournau pinpoints and expertly depicts the frights that exist in the everyday world, especially for a young woman trying to figure out her place within it. The film is so startling because it’s not necessarily the monstrous moments that will shake the audience up, but rather the mundane ones. There’s a deliberate disorientation during the seemingly normal occurrences, but a fixed serenity during the more violent ones.

Such control is a testament to the sheer talent of this new director. Docournau channels Cronenberg’s style of symbolic body horror (Dead Ringers, The Fly) and Lynch’s hypnagogic surrealism (Blue Velvet, Eraserhead, Inland Empire) and makes them her own in a cacophony of loud, densely-packed imagery. The aesthetics she employs are multi-faceted, providing psychological shock, emotional catharsis, and allegorical commentary. She is extremely purposeful with whatever visually arresting image she shows the audience at any particular moment. The hypnotic visual of a horse running on a treadmill is a personal standout. It’s apparent that Ducournau prefers long moments of silence, punctuating the thematic impact of the imagery, to explain what’s happening rather than incorporating large amounts of dialogue.

Raw is a story told mainly through a series of changing body movements, in which Justine transforms from a loving human into a ferocious animal. Without the effective performances of Garance Marillier and Ella Rumpf as the main sisters, this movie would be a visual feast with no substance. But the way these actresses carry themselves, and especially the way their composure changes throughout the runtime, solidifies the importance of the story that’s unfolding. Marillier is, at first, all doe-eyed trepidation. But her self-discovery is eerily reminiscent of those seen in Persona (1966) and The Neon Demon (2016). Meanwhile Rumpf is smoldering and dangerous, both loving and unhinged. The sisters ride their arcs in such a way that whatever tension is between them is equivalent to the warmth between them. The closeness they share connects them in their finest moments but also cultivates a simmering mutual resentment.

Where there’s drama and discomfort, there’s also humor to be found. Raw is sharply written, with minor realistic banter to provide a refreshing chuckle. Some of the more disturbing instances also harbor masterful tonal shifts, to such a degree that the audience was uncomfortably laughing before suddenly squirming. But as the film enters its final act, the alleviating humor is non-existent, in favor of emotional shocks and cathartic visuals.

The compelling imagery of the animals in the veterinary school is left in the first half as well, as we funnel focus onto the animal that our main character has become. Though the ending is abrupt, casually neglecting to fully wrap up Justine’s arc and beckoning audiences to yearn for closure, it only reaffirms just how deeply the film has drawn the viewer into the devolution of this character.

Nonetheless, Julia Ducournau has made an audacious first impression with Raw, showing off how the female touch (in front of and behind the camera) can add so much to an understanding of tone and genre filmmaking. By adding terror with a feminine backbone, Ducournau & Co. offer deeper characterizations and engage viewers in the emotions of each disturbing beat of the film. With a unique premise in a visually compelling setting, she puts together a tale that’s scarily relatable. Raw paints a picture of the dangers of navigating the new environment of college life, wherein cannibalism hyperbolically represents the progressively degenerative and destructive personas that impressionable college freshmen can potentially end up embracing. By facing stigmatized fear head on and creatively applying cathartic characters to unleash what is so often concealed, Raw weaves a bloody tapestry that powerfully represents coming-of-age fears and considerably emboldens the importance of women in film. It’s thematically rich, narratively adroit, visually daring, and – perhaps, most significantly – aggressively female.

15

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

LEISURE

The Last Days of Judas Iscariot Pushes a Deeper Question

by Carlos Miranda

The name Judas is universally recognizable. Though it has obviously gained recognition through centuries of retelling the story of Jesus of Nazareth, it has become synonymous with one word: traitor. Nomadic Theatre’s The Last Days of Judas Iscariot tries to answer the question of who Judas really was. As director Velani Dibba (SFS ’17) asks, what can make a man betray his best friend? He did betray Jesus, of course, and he received his judgement. But what would that trial have looked like? Who is Judas?

The Last Days of Judas Iscariot puts Judas on trial as an ambitious lawyer tries to get him an appeal. It follows the procedures of that trial closely, and as the plot develops, witnesses from Judas’ time as well as ours are summoned, questioned, and cross-examined in this Downtown Purgatory court. The set design enhances the theatrical experience by seating the audience around the courtroom, encouraging them to feel as though they are the jury—the lawyers arguing their case before the viewers.

Driving the story are the two lawyers, Fabiana Cunningham for the defense and El Fayoumy for the prosecution, and the captivating dynamic between their clashing personalities.

Cunningham initiates the plot by demanding that the judge hear Judas’ appeal. The judge initially dismisses the seemingly ludicrous appeal on behalf of Judas Iscariot, but she perseveres, determined to argue her case. Enter El Fayoumy. As he bursts into the courtroom, it immediately becomes obvious that the two characters are opposites in every way. Cunningham is competent and patient, while El Fayoumy dashes in having left his license in his “other suit.” El Fayoumy relishes the attention of the court and delivers each statement with a flourish; Cunningham is simply trying to help her client.

Allison Lane (COL ’19) performs the role expertly, conveying Cunningham’s no-nonsense approach and her vexation at the court’s antagonism without going so far as to lose the audience’s support. She has the confidence to portray the hard-nosed lawyer convincingly and the emotional range the role requires. Ben Lillian (COL ’18) as El Fayoumy is hilarious, performing his bombastic character with consistent energy and flair throughout the show’s considerable running time. Lillian and Lane form an amusing relationship, El Fayoumy’s brazen cheekiness the foil to Cunningham’s seriousness.

Theatregoers familiar with the story of Judas likely have an opinion on whether he’s guilty, but this trial would lead anyone to

reexamine their view. It’s hard not to keep a mental tally of the many arguments and witness statements for and against Judas, as more is revealed about who he was and what reality he lived in. Caiaphas the Elder (Thomas Shuman, COL ’17) is convinced that betraying Jesus was Judas’ idea, but, as Sigmund Freud (Chris Phillips, MSB ’20) testifies, Judas’ suicide demonstrates that he was deeply disturbed.

The story of Judas 2,000 years ago is distant and inaccessible to everyone, but the play imagines the characters involved in terms contemporary audiences can appreciate, from leather jacket-wearing, cussing Saint Monica (Emily Lett, COL ’17) to jarhead Pontius Pilate (David Toledo, MSB ’19).

The modern takes on the characters are humorous, but The Last Days of Judas Iscariot faces the complex question of Judas’ damnation head-on. Judas is a complicated and ultimately broken man. Andrew Schneider (COL ’19) plays the character well, conveying Judas’ struggle with his guilt. Scenes from Judas’s life along with testimony from the apostles, the people who knew him best, work together to create a comprehensive, relatable understanding of the historical figure. There lies the success of The Last Days of Judas Iscariot. By helping people to see themselves in the character of Judas, it enables them to begin to reckon their own guilt with hope of salvation.

all photos Bailey Bradford

Keeho Kang