OPINIONS Tuesday, April 2023 Thursday, Monday, Monday, October October April25 3,2,5, 2017 2017 2017
EDITORIAL: A NOT-QUITE LIVING WAGE Raises for graduate student employees should go further, but the New York state government needs to play its part.
Over spring break, Binghamton University finally announced it would raise minimum stipends for full-time, 10-month doctoral students from $17,000 to $21,000 in fall 2023. Doctoral students already receiving stipends above $21,000 and will receive a $1,000 raise. While this raise is a big step forward, we hope the University will continue this momentum. The University is — no doubt — in a tough spot. SUNY has been strained by years of underfunding, and BU’s administration must tap into its internal budget to fund increases in stipends. New York State Gov. Kathy Hochul has a monumentous task ahead of her as a $160 million deficit looms over the SUNY system, but any significant changes
must begin with her. It should not be up to universities to ration their thinning budgets, and the Editorial Board strongly believes it is time for the state to step up. That doesn’t take the BU off the hook, however. When looking at other large SUNY institutions, like the University at Buffalo — an institution comparable in both status and its surrounding area’s cost of living — BU falls short. Our raises for doctoral students on 10-month appointments are $2,000 lower and were announced months later. Additionally, Buffalo had already been paying its doctoral students $20,000 since 2019, higher than our current $17,000 floor. Obviously, the circumstances faced by other schools are not necessarily
to those identical to BU, but as a school that prides itself on its research ability — why shouldn’t our offerings be just as competitive? Provost Donald Hall warned that next year’s stipend increases would come at a $1.54 million annual cost to the University. Last year, BU announced its largest-ever donor campaign, EXCELERATE, with a $220 million dollar goal. As of this past December, only 25 percent of that goal is remaining. If we want to continue to draw students to conduct research and graduate-level work at our school — integral for our status within the SUNY system — a small portion of that funding should be promised toward graduate stipends. Though not mentioned in the University’s press release,
the recent stipend increases come after tireless advocacy by the school’s Graduate Student Employee Union’s (GSEU). The GSEU’s goal, an over $30,000 stipend for all graduatelevel employees, is certainly ambitious — and likely a far way off from possible in the near future. But these calls for change are not new, nor are they native to Binghamton. All around the country, from Cornell University to state schools in California, graduate employees are calling for living wages. While public universities have limited financial mobility themselves, an eventual path toward living wages can only be accomplished through assistance from those in government. Hochul’s proposal to use tuition hikes to fund SUNY
deficits drew criticism — and it should. This massive burden should not be placed on students. The governor is now an entire three weeks late in announcing her state budget, but we hope she heeds the demands of those around her. Last month, the New York State Senate and State Assembly passed one-house budget resolutions that rejected SUNY tuition increases and called for increased operating funds for SUNY. We implore upon Gov. Hochul to find explore new ways to fund our schools without limiting what makes them appealing in the first place. Hochul’s $1.5 billion dollar promise in new funding is promising, but it should be well-thought-out too. For our graduate workers — which, though the University
does not acknowledge in stipend increases, include more than just doctoral students — the path forward is certainly a difficult one, filled with bureaucratic hurdles. Nondoctoral graduate employees are still paying for broad-based fees, and their stipends remain low despite working comparable hours to their peers. Still, the Editorial Board is glad to see that conversations regarding stipend increases are entering the public sphere in full-force. Like those calling for a living wage, we simply want what is best for our school, and we hope officials in both the University and state government will pledge the same.
Soulmates don’t exist
The ideal of soulmates compromises relationship standards. Julia O’Reily Opinions Columnist
Do soulmates exist? If you couldn’t guess, I — the heartless bitch behind this screen, who often finds her faith in love dwindling in the presence of frat douches and alpha-male gym-bros — do not believe in such a pretty-picture concept. Shocking, I know. But my unyielding “men are assholes until proven otherwise” mindset is not the only reason why. To be fair, I hope for the sake of probability that the one-person-for-everyperson theory is untrue. Some, like a writer at the Atlantic, claim that “such
expectations are correlated with dysfunctional patterns in relationships.” Not only can the idea of soulmates hinder individuals from entering a relationship for fear that their significant other isn’t their one true person, but it can also lead to harmful tendencies between partners. It can be conducive to a belief in “mind reading” and other unrealistic ideas that align with the unrealistic nature of soulmates. Because it’s “cosmically perfect,” people believe that their relationship should be immune to issues and challenges. This misconception can wreak havoc on relationships, hindering forgiveness and escalating the severity of conflicts, as people may
assume a person is simply wrong for them rather than choose to persevere through issues that could be healthy for a relationship to endure. Additionally, there are fundamental flaws in the inherent premise of soulmates. Lots of those who marry their proclaimed soulmates get divorced years later. How does the idea account for widows and widowers? It assumes that another person completes an individual rather than encouraging individuals to complete themselves. It also justifies staying in toxic and, at times, abusive relationships because the criterion of being a soulmate surpasses all others that could possibly matter. Ultimately, the idea of soulmates allows for the
compromise of personal standards, even though it is an archaic idea that has no reasonable basis. While love and compatibility can be real and genuine, it is much more practical to assume that some people are just better suited for each other than others. And this theory, one of practicality, is contingent upon the single most human liberty an individual can possess — free will. Through the belief that a partner is not destined but rather found and worked for, people can see love from the vantage point that they have the power to choose. The theory acknowledges that love is not easy and shouldn’t be, and people should be satisfied because of their active choice to be with another person.
In Women’s Health, Sabrina Romanoff, a clinical psychologist at Lenox Hill Hospital, explains that the traditional soulmate belief “paves the way for significant disappointment.” Instead, Romanoff suggests soulmates be “created,” not found. Those searching for soulmates should spend time learning about their prospective partner and work through difficult times, Romanoff says. This investment of time and energy that cultivates a relationship is a healthy facet of love and all of its complications. It inspires one to exercise agency and maintain high expectations for themselves, fostering a progressive and empowered outlook on love. Don’t get me wrong, I’m
a sucker for a good Nicholas Sparks movie night. But as much as the heart-tugging plots make me wish for my own Ryan Gosling to build me a white house with blue shutters, I just don’t think it’s that simple. But the gray, the messy and the complicated — that’s how love exists beyond the big screen. I can admit that if it were easy, it probably wouldn’t be worth much at all. I guess that’s the point — to look for a soulmate and find someone pretty damn close.
Julia O’Reilly is sophomore majoring biology.
a in
Texas judge’s attempt to ban abortion pills is dangerous Safe and effective abortion methods like mifepristone must be accessible Samantha Rigante Opinions Columnist
On April 7, a federal judge from Texas issued an extremely controversial ruling claiming that the drug mifepristone, which has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for over 20 years — since 2000 — is unsafe and that the FDA made a mistake in approving it to be medically available. Mifepristone is most commonly used as a way to induce abortions through a two-part regimen of pills, with additional uses including treating miscarriages and
diseases such as Cushing’s syndrome, in which people produce excess cortisol. Mifepristone, which medical experts commonly agree is safe, is now at risk of being banned because of a judge appointed by former President Donald Trump. After the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade last year, the right to get an abortion has been banned or severely limited in many states throughout the country. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida signed a law on April 14 banning abortions after six weeks, with no exceptions, and other states including Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana banned abortion procedures at every stage of pregnancy. In Texas, where the federal
judge issued this new ruling, abortion is banned in nearly all cases, including in circumstances of rape or incest. Adding to America’s dismal health care system, there is a lack of availability to receive a safe abortion in so many states. With the new ruling, there is now the possibility that even in states where abortion is illegal, the most common method of receiving one may be banned. Abortion pills are known to be safe — according to over 30 years worth of studies analyzed by the New York Times, more than 99 percent of abortions completed using pills resulted in no severe side effects or hospitalizations. Dr. Caleb Alexander of
Johns Hopkins University noted that, “There may be a political fight here, but there’s not a lot of scientific ambiguity about the safety and effectiveness of this product.” The decision to receive an abortion via a widely safe pill should not be the decision of one judge but rather the choice of women who actually receive abortions. Banning the abortion pill won’t decrease the number of women who have abortions, but it will decrease the opportunity for women to use a safe and effective pill. In addition, using a single-drug method to induce an abortion is somewhat less effective and safe than the currently used method, and banning
mifepristone will not allow women to receive abortions via mifepristone even in states where abortion is legal. In response to the Texas federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s ruling, a federal judge from Washington State issued an opposing ruling — joined by 17 other states — stating that Kacsmaryk’s ruling is incorrect and is hindering the FDA from “altering the status quo and rights as it relates to the availability of Mifepristone.” Kacsmaryk’s ruling was initially supposed to take effect seven days after it was issued, but the Supreme Court, which is next to hear this case, has held off of banning it until Friday, April 21 right before
midnight. While it is now under the purview of the Supreme Court to see whether or not mifepristone’s FDA approval will be removed and whether or not it will be banned, reducing access not only to abortions but to the safest, most effective way of receiving one is detrimental to women’s rights and health care. Removing the ability to receive the abortion pill via mail and in pharmacies jeopardizes women’s ability to make safe decisions for themselves in the United States.
Samantha Rigante is a freshman majoring in philosophy, politics and law.