November 2016

REPORTER NOVEMBER 2016 reporter.rit.edu

NOVEMBER 2016 reporter.rit.edu

REPORTER

Please Recycle

REPORTER EDITOR IN CHIEF Mandi Moon PRINT MANAGING EDITOR Bryanne McDonough ONLINE MANAGING EDITOR Liz Peterson COPY EDITOR Ramya Shankar NEWS EDITOR Taylor Derrisaw TECHNOLOGY EDITOR Ryan Black LEISURE EDITOR Claire Fleming FEATURES EDITOR Rozie Yeghiazarian SPORTS EDITOR Kristin Grant VIEWS EDITOR Jake Krajewski WRITERS Taylor Goethe, Ryan Black, Nathan Castle, Rozie Yeghiazarian, Taylor Derrisaw, Kevin Zampieron, Kristin Grant, Bryanne McDonough

EDITOR’S NOTE I know I don’t need to reiterate this, but it has been a painful election cycle for all of us. Finally, while this issue is still on stands, the beginning of the end will take the nation by storm. We will either have our first woman president, or our first reality television star. I’ll let you guess which one I’m rooting for.

I know that our generation tends to feel like democracy is a failure. We see those who are suffering, and we see that they are all too often the product of a system that has let us all down. It’s easy to become disheartened and cynical; it’s easy to blame those who came before us; it’s easy to sit around bemoaning the situation that we have found ourselves in. It’s easy to not vote.

Our parents’ generation expects this from us. They think we are all talk, and no action. They think we are obsessed with ourselves, and they think we will not stand up when push comes to shove. Let’s prove them wrong.

I’m terrified of what will happen if we don’t.

ART ART DIRECTOR Dennae Makel ONLINE ART DIRECTOR Madeleigh Place DESIGNERS Dasha Buduchina, Emma Flemming, Kendra Murphy, Paula Piedrahita, Kevin Zampieron, Rebecca Wolinski, Carina Singeltary ILLUSTRATORS Lauren Mays, Alexis Jeffries, Madeleigh Place, Alyssa Minko, Unique Fair, Stephanie Chan, Monica Nguyen-Vo

Mandi Moon Editor in Chief

PHOTOGRAPHY PHOTO EDITOR Rob Rauchwerger ONLINE PHOTO EDITOR Joseph Ressler PHOTOGRAPHERS Joseph Ressler, Catie Rafferty, Rob Rauchwerger, Rebekah Havens

BUSINESS BUSINESS MANAGER Zachary Grzelka AD / PR MANAGER Alexis Montoya PRODUCTION MANAGER Mitchell Morgan ONLINE SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR Peter Willis WEB MANAGER Joe Jankowiak VIDEO EDITOR Francesco D’Amanda

Letters to the Editor should be sent to rpteic@rit.edu. No letters will be printed unless signed. All letters received become the property of REPORTER.

ADVISOR Rudy Pugliese PRINTING EPi Printing CONTACT 585.475.2212 Online Video Component

Reporter Magazine is published monthly during the academic year by a staff comprised of students at Rochester Institute of Technology. Business, Editorial and Design facilities are located in Room A-730, in the lower level of the Campus Center. Our phone number is 1.585.475.2212. The Advertising Department can be reached at 1.585.475.2213. “We are all aggressively bland” -R.B. The opinions expressed in Reporter do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute. Reporter is not responsible for materials presented in advertising areas. Reporter takes pride in its membership in the Associated Collegiate Press and American Civil Liberties Union. Copyright © 2014 Reporter Magazine. All rights reserved. No portion of this Magazine may be reproduced without prior written permission.

November 3

TA B L E O F cover and TOC illustration by Lauren Mays

NE WS 6

T E CH

THE EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL PARTIES The two major parties have to adapt to changing voter demands

8

POLITICAL DISCOURSE IN THE ERA OF SOCIAL MEDIA

LEISURE 10

Do TV shows represent reality?

Facebook and Twitter have changed political discourse

12

14

@reportermag 4 November

THE RELATIONSHIP OF FICTIONAL POLITICS WITH THE REAL THING

THE IMPACT OF VOTING IN LOCAL ELECTIONS Your vote has more of an impact than you’d think

AT YOUR LEISURE A childish presidential race

CONTENTS FE AT URES 16

PETTY POLITICS Politics is a slimy game

SPOR T S 24

INSEPARABLE: THE HISTORY OF POLITICAL PROTEST WITHIN SPORTS

VIEWS 26

Voting shouldn’t be a game of strategy

A look back at the storied relationship between politics and sports

18

20

THE TRIUMVIRATE OF RIT A breakdown of RIT’s organizational structure and how decisions are made on campus

PARTY HARD A brief overview of the political parties and respective candidates in this election cycle

OUR ELECTIONS ARE STUPID: HOW TO MAKE THEM LESS DUMB

28

30

WORD ON THE STREET Who in your life has shaped your views?

RINGS Text or Call (585) 672-4840

reporter.rit.edu November 5

by Taylor Synclair Goethe| illustration by Alexis Jeffries | design by Dasha Buduchina

T

he 2016 presidential election is unique when compared to its predecessors.

The introduction of democratic socialist Bernie Sanders and alternative right Donald Trump has pushed the already polarized Democratic and Republican parties to even further extremes.

Only four short years ago, Barack Obama campaigned for re-election against then Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Although each party had its clear policy distinctions, no one questioned the validity of each party’s platform or the fitness of a candidate to lead.

Now the current election cycle seems to be a far cry from the Democratic and Republican parties’ former platforms.

The Former Democratic Party

Back in 2008, Obama was a superstar progressive that rallied scores of minority and millennial voters to the polls. He had new ideas, a fresh perspective and a “Yes We Can” slogan that gave hope to a suffering generation that the Bush era was finally over and a new era would begin.

Then four years later, the honeymoon bells stopped ringing and voters were faced with the harsh reality that recovering from the biggest economic recession since the Great Depression can only happen at a snail’s pace. In 2012, the Democratic party was less concerned about starting a new political revolution than trying to resell Obama to its weary voters. His second campaign slogan, “Forward” — better described as “Steady as she goes” — was an effort to encourage voters to be patient for the prosperity to come.

6 News

The Former Republican Party

After their defeat in 2008, many Republicans felt threatened by the drastic changes to federal powers Obama had implemented, such as the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare). Many blue-collar conservatives felt that House Republicans were becoming weak on fiscal policy and wanted a more aggressive push to reduce the deficit while ensuring traditional values were kept in American homes.

Entering from the far-right stage was the Tea Party: a pro-austerity, ultra-conservative wave of radicalization in the Republican party founded by Ted Cruz. They wanted to

reduce spending and the national budget, lower taxes and keep the government the hell out of their business — and were willing to shutdown the government to do it. The invasion of the Tea Party mustered internal turmoil within the GOP, leaving more orthodox Republicans — ­ such as presidential candidate Mitt Romney — struggling for power.

The Democratic Party and Their Nominee Now

In 2008, Hillary Clinton marketed herself as the moderate Democrat, someone who stresses bipartisanism by meeting in the middle and working with Republicans.

However, the trend toward polarization of party ideology had already begun. Obama’s calls for progressivism appealed to young voters seeking significant political change, whereas Clinton’s conventional approach seemed out of date and out of touch.

After a bitter loss, Clinton was slowly pushed further left into liberalism.

She started supporting full marriage equality for same-sex couples as opposed to just equal benefits.

Then, with the introduction of the even more radical Bernie Sanders, a movement for democratic socialism came and the party sparred within itself to accommodate a new generation of ultra-liberal voters. It wasn’t until Clinton shed her identity as a moderate altogether, and joined forces with the progressives, that she presented herself less like a third-term Bill Clinton but more of a third-term Obama, allowing her to siphon lingering voters not ready to make the shift into socialism.

The Republican Party and Their Nominee Now

No matter what he says, Trump has spent most of his life as a liberal Democrat up until the last decade, according to the Washington Post. Trump and his brand have donated to numerous Democrats’ campaigns, including Hillary Clinton’s. Trump has been quoted supporting abortion, the legalization of drugs and increasing taxes on the wealthy. It was not until the tail end of Bush’s presidency and the first election of Obama that Trump took a

more conservative turn, beginning with the birther controversy.

In the present day, after the failure of the Tea Party, the very same low-income, white, blue-collar workers that had been frustrated with the GOP have now completely lost faith in the Republican party. Entering the farthest right of the stage is Donald J. Trump and the alternative right movement, a radical right-wing ideology that completely rejects mainstream conservatism. In response to the wave of fiscally progressive policies and

expansion of government under Obama, these Republicans want to take back their country and “Make America Great Again.”

Trump answers their calls through isolationist policies that put America first, bring back jobs from overseas and tells the rest of the world who’s boss. Additionally, to the dismay of the traditional Republican party, Trump’s spitfire rhetoric appeals to voters’ emotions.

Political parties will continue to evolve in their efforts to win over voters. Where this will take our country is yet to be seen.

For a more comprehensive look at the candidates’ stances, check out our article on the debates on reporter.rit.edu

2012 Candidate Platforms

Barack Obama

Mitt Romney

Economy

Increase taxes on the wealthy

Lower taxes

Modest budget cuts

Extensive budget cuts

Healthcare

Protect the Affordable Care Act

Repeal the Affordable Care Act

National Security

Cut defense to balance budget

Build diplomatic ties with UK and Israel

Build diplomtic ties with China

Social Issues

Remove boots from the ground and focus on drone strikes

Increase defense spending

Support same-sex marriage

Promotes traditional

Pro-choice

marriages only

Aggressively stop Iran’s nuclear program

Pro-life

2016 Candidate Platforms

Hillary Clinton

Donald Trump

Economy

Raise taxes for the wealthy

America first trade policy

Invest in clean energy, infrastructure and technology

Reduce taxes across the board

Healthcare

Provide tax relief for small businesses

End job-killing regulations on industries

Supports Planned Parenthood

Repeal Obamacare

Paid family and medical leave

Allow purchase of insurance across state lines

Expand the Affordable Care Act

Maximize flexibility of states with block grants National Security

Social Issues

Supports Iran Deal

Increase size of the military

Work with allies to build coalition against ISIS

Use Cold War tactics to defeat radical Islamic ideology

Build stronger ties with Cuba

Disagrees with Iran Deal

Reform the criminal justice system

Supports right-to-carry

Comprehensive background checks

Ensure Law and Order in inner cities

Fight climate change

Protect the Constitution

News 7

POLITICAL

DIsCOURSE

in the Era of Social Media

by Kristin Grant | photography by Rob Rauchwerger | design by Rebecca Wolinski

I

n the grand scheme of American political history, social media has occupied only a smidgen of time. Yet, despite being relative newcomers, platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have already irrevocably shaped our political dialogue. A recent PewResearch Center study found that Millennials in particular rely on social media above all other outlets as their source of relevant political news — and over 35 percent of those surveyed cited the feeds as the place they turn to first.

A Positive Change in Political Discussion?

For both politicians and the public, adapting to this new way of communicating and receiving information has not been without a learning curve. However, as third year Network Systems Administration major and president of RIT’s College Republicans Ryan Brenek pointed out, social media has opened a new channel of communication between the candidates and the public.

“People can follow what their beliefs are

8 Technology

and be more in touch with the candidates.

When there is good news or controversy, it spreads faster,” he said.

Second year Political Science and International Global Studies double major Alessandra Santarosa, who heads the RIT College Democrats, was in agreement with Brenek. “Because of social media, you can get things out easier — it’s just a much better platform to reach out to people,” she said.

“Is it getting more people active and participating?

Absolutely.”

College of Liberal Arts communication professor Mike Johansson, who has spent much of his career exploring the relationship between mass media and politics, had some thoughts on the benefits of their affiliation as well.

“Is it getting more people active and participating? Absolutely,” he said. “Back in the day, people would meet in the village

square to discuss things,” Johannson said.

“But when modern mass media came along, that became less of a thing. People would talk one-on-one on the telephone, or they’d talk in small groups — but the broad village square discussion didn’t happen so much. Social media has brought that back.”

Facebook and Twitter have also allowed people to have conversations with each other that would not have otherwise taken place, Johansson argued. “There are people who can tweet @realDonaldTrump and occasionally get a response. Same with Hillary Clinton. Whether it is actually her or someone from her campaign, that gives people a sense that they can reach into the campaign and engage with someone. I think that is a very good thing.”

For Brenek and Santarosa, social media has also helped their clubs get in touch with their broader political party.

“I’ve found it helps keep the community in the loop,” Brenek said. “There are local chapters that follow us and we are able to coordinate with them and local politicians.”

Santarosa said that her club uses Facebook and Twitter in similar ways.

... Or a Negative One? Many of the qualities that make social media unique and accessible can often prove to be double-edged swords. One of those traits happens to be users’ ability to customize what they see. However, that type of mindset only contributes to bias, according to Brenek.

broadside and announce ‘I’m unfriending you because you clearly don’t think straight,’” Johansson explained. “It’s odd, and sad in many ways. If you’re giving up friendships because people don’t think the way you do, what kind of world do you want to live in?”

Santarosa also brought up just how easily comments and posts can be misconstrued.

“When you tweet someone, it’s up for interpretation.

You might say something one way, and a person can interpret it another.”

“It’s like the confirmation theory in psychology: you get what you want to see and it proves what you want to believe,” he said.

“That leads people to be more upset, or less agreeable, and probably not want to work for a middle ground as much.”

While Johansson agreed with Brenek, he also added a caveat: “Social media is no different than the real world. We tend to see what we want to see, and overlook, or ignore, the things we don’t really want to,” he said.

However, what makes Facebook different from the average social interaction is the anonymity a screen provides, he continued.

“You feel like you can give them electronic

“When you tweet someone, it’s up for interpretation,” she said. “You might say something one way, and a person can interpret it another.” Unlike a normal conversation between two individuals, where expression and tone can provide informational cues, social media is often restricted to a specific word count. Sometimes, comments intended to be sarcastic can be perceived seriously, and serious comments regarded as flippant.

This needless confusion can result in bitter arguments and wild back-tracking.

One of the other critiques on online political conversation is how quickly it dissolves into a chaotic verbal bloodbath.

“I don’t know if the internet will ever be a good place for civilized discussion,” said Brenek, laughing. “As far as solutions, I’m not really sure — social media is built around the fact that you get to select what you want to see, and follow who you want to follow.”

Johansson recommended that everyone educate themselves on the political leanings of both parties as a way to combat needless bias. “Depending on who you’re connected to on social media, you can get a broad range of opinions,” he said. “But if you’re only connected to like-minded people, then you’re getting a fairly narrow view of the election.”

“If people take it upon themselves, they can be educated. It starts with the individual,” Santarosa concurred. “If you don’t want to engage in argument, you don’t have to.

Sometimes, you just have to take a step back.”

While social media is not without its share of problems, it has still become a invaluable fixture of political discourse.

Platforms like Twitter and Facebook share an an incredible ability to educate and bring communities together. However, it is evident that as we continue to use these tools, we will collectively have navigate several new dynamics of political conversation.

Technology 9

THE RELATIONSHIP OF

FICTIONAL POLITICS

REAL THING

WITH THE

by Ryan Black illustration by Madeleigh Place design by Emma Fleming

10 Leisure

W

e often like to think of political opinions as a spectrum or an abstract gauge on which one finds themselves: everyone is somewhere on the left, right or in the middle. In a way, it’s almost fitting that politics are depicted in fictional media as having their own spectrum — one not necessarily of political leaning, but of cynicism vs. optimism with reality somewhere off to the side. A common theme in politic-based media is conspiracies, because that attracts viewers.

“It feeds into our fears,” said Elise Banfield, a professor in the Department of Psychology. “When we can watch a show that highlights fears that we may not even be fully aware of ourselves, that show is going to sell — it’s going to get an audience.” However, it is important to understand the distinction between a TV show and real politics.

has it better, because usually when someone screws something up, it’s because they were acting like idiots.”

Pfeiffer noted how “Veep” captured how “absurdity is the new normal” in politics, words that ring that much more true now than when he wrote them in June of 2015 (four days before a certain individual declared his candidacy for President).

“Our show started out as a political satire but it now feels like a sobering documentary,” joked “Veep” lead Julia Louis-Dreyfus (President Selina Meyer) at this year’s Emmys. “So I soberly promise to rebuild that wall, and make Mexico pay for it.”

FICTIONAL DEPICTIONS COMPARED TO “REAL POLITICS”

Despite being so far from reality, a show like “House of Cards” has the ability to engage its audience in a way which shapes individuals’ perceptions of real politics. And unlike how Pfeiffer described “The West Wing” as something which inspired him, Banfield explained how a show like “House of Cards” gets its audience engrossed much differently.

“I think people want to believe that. They want to believe [that’s what’s] actually happening,” said Banfield.

Banfield contended that the fiction which can conjure up a genuinely fearful message is far more potent in influencing its audience: “Anything that is going to trigger fear, is going to get people to bond more [with the material], because it gets them concerned. It speaks to their psyche and they worry.” Negative emotions like fear and anxiety, according to Banfield, resonate far more than optimism or hopefulness.

As for whether or not such impressions translate over to real-life politics, Banfield argued that despite viewers recognizing it consciously as a TV show, it feeds into our emotions on a subconscious level.

“They’ll accept on a conscious level that it is fictional, but then it gets them thinking about all these ‘what if’ scenarios,” noted Banfield — pointing to how real-life political advertisements and other messaging will often suggest that what is currently happening, or about to happen, to be pretty dire. “Then we’re not accurate anymore, we’re living off of our perceptions. Our thoughts create our reality.” Portraying such fears within the context of political fiction makes it all the easier to picture what form they could take as well.

While “House of Cards” type conspiracies may not exist, Banfield noted how that won’t stop people from looking: “For instance for folks that don’t support Hillary [Clinton], they may just be waiting for information to come out that would deem her in a negative light.”

Those that vehemently see politics through such conspiratorial light will disregard all evidence to the contrary, Banfield added.

“Until they get that one nugget — that one nugget of knowledge and then they say ‘there it is, see, I knew she was liar, I knew she was dishonest,’ despite all this other evidence,” said Banfield. “[These conspiracies] may not be happening, but people will see what they want to see.” Banfield pointed out that when there is a character with whom viewers can relate to on such a show, it further reinforces these perceptions. Fear is a powerful tool in getting people to bond with fiction.

While it is definitely a large part of what makes its political intrigue so engaging, “House of Cards” revels in its characters having nefarious goals and means. Within the show everything is a deliberate and usually selfish move for power, and there is rarely a character without at least one ulterior motive. “[When] people ask me television questions about the White House, they’re always: ‘Is it like “House of Cards?’” said Jon Favreau, President Barack Obama’s former chief speechwriter, in a conversation with The Ringer. According to Favreau, that cynical sentiment echoes the tone and feel that the show exudes. “We’re a conspiracy-driven culture now, ‘everything’s a conspiracy, everything’s rigged,’ and so that’s very ‘House of Cards.’”

The tonal contrast between “House of Cards” and the political show of the last decade, “The West Wing,” is stark to say the least. “The West Wing” gives an idealized portrayal of how politics should work, depicting a cast of altruistic public servants, always eventually solving the problem at hand — such a blatant romanticization that even Favreau understood why some might roll their eyes at it.

While perhaps not realistic, those like Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior advisor to Obama, admit that to a certain degree such an interpretation was inspiring at the time.

“If a generation of reporters signed up for journalism aspiring to be Robert Redford’s character in ‘All the President’s Men,’ then the Obama White House is staffed with younger aides (myself included) who entered politics hoping to serve a future President Bartlet,” articulated Pfeiffer in a 2015 article he wrote for Grantland.

Both Favreau and Pfeiffer agreed that the show which actually captures the true essence of Washington politics is “Veep.” While the fictional universes of “House of Cards” and “The West Wing” may have constant drama or tension, Pfeiffer cites how the real thing is much less exciting. Like “Veep” depicts it, the act of running the government is apparently quite banal; only rarely will “moments of great excitement” happen.

In “Veep,” a political occurrence that might be depicted as a deeprunning conspiracy or meticulous play for power in “House of Cards” would most likely be shown as accidental. As Favreau put it, “‘Veep’

HOW FICTION IN TURN AFFECTS OUR PERCEPTION OF REAL POLITICS

“Negative emotions like fear and anxiety, resonate far more than optimism or hopefulness.”

Leisure 11

by Nathan Castle photography by Rob Rauchwerger design by Kendra Murphy

H

igh taxes. Pollution. Draconian regulations.

Unacceptably weak/strong gun laws. Police brutality. Annoying traffic laws. The threeperson housing rule. “Thanks Obama?”

Not so fast — in a year when foreign affairs and populist agendas have commanded attention, the enduring importance of local government has been easy to ignore. Ironically, with all of the recent focus on imagined corruption and real gridlock in Washington, the local issues have been ignored — and those may have the largest impact on RIT students.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: your vote matters.

You’ve probably heard and seen this so often on social media that it becomes a bit sickening, but this is one media trend that may have some merit.

Even if you didn’t register to vote this election, local elections happen often and in off-years, depending on where you live. Unlike federal elections, in which your

12 Leisure

vote is counted among millions and then weighted and interpreted by the electoral college, local elections are direct. And better yet, the power of your vote is concentrated: New York State Assembly members Harry Bronson and David Gantt each serve only 130,000 constituents in the area and are up for re-election this November.

Local and state elections are not glamorous. You wouldn’t even be reading this article if it weren’t a primary election year. That’s a shame, since so much of our local leadership is elected in off-years like 2015,when no one is paying attention. Even in general election years like this one, important local elections are ignored. Just recently, Bill Nojay won the Republican primary several days after he took his own life pending a corruption investigation. Incumbents always have an advantage, but with the level of scrutiny given to deleted emails and offensive tweets, having a pulse should be a minimal qualification for media attention.

Camille Howard, a volunteer for RIT’s ROAR the Vote and second year Film and Animation major, notes that even though voting for president seems disappointing this year, there are still senate elections and local elections.

“Making people aware that the president is not the only person you can vote for,” is important, she said. “I think that’s the stuff that is really going to affect your life. It’s not going to be what the president says about Syria as much as it’s going to be about what your school board says about the fifth grade curriculum or something like that.”

For a touch of context on why local legislature matters: the New York State Assembly and Senate made the rule that Uber can’t operate in upstate New York, including Rochester, and Henrietta’s housing rules, long the bane of

“It’s a shame when students don’t vote, because their voice isn’t heard on the issues that can really affect them.”

RIT commuters, went into effect years ago and hasn’t been substantively challenged since. Andrea Shaver, president of Student Government, suggested that local government is more important than students realize.

“A lot of the government issues that affect students are on the local level,” Shaver said. “It’s a shame when students don’t vote, because their voice isn’t heard on the issues that can really affect them.”

We all know that politicians work for voters. When you don’t vote, that’s a clear message to politicians to

work for the citizens who did. According to The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, 59 percent of 18-to-24-year-olds who could have voted in the 2012 primary election didn’t, while 66.3 percent of voters above age 30 cast their votes in the same election. And while students don’t vote as consistently as other groups, it is clear that they care about local issues — whether they know it or not.

Howard noted that sometimes people put local elections on the back burner because they may think it’s just not as important. “I think that [voters] just forget and assume that it’s just going to work itself out, but that’s not how the government works,” she said.

It is not just the legislative and executive branch that you can vote for in the upcoming election. Judges are also up for election in both local and state courts. These judges decide how laws will be applied and interpreted.

As their title implies, judges exercise their judgment in determining sentences and, in many cases, verdicts.

There’s an open position for the New York State Supreme Court and additional openings for a town justice in Brighton, a court judge in Rochester and Family and County Court judges in Monroe County. Judges and justices are elected for long terms — often 10 years or more — and have more influence than you might think.

Not convinced that you should be looking down the ballot as you vote this November? Even if you don’t plan to vote for your local justices or state officials, at the very least consider voting in the Congressional elections. At the federal level for New York, Sen. Chuck Schumer and House Rep. Louise Slaughter are both up for re-election this year.

Both candidates have public voting records that you can see for yourself — there’s no need to make an uninformed choice. GovTrack is an excellent and friendly resource for you to learn more about what’s going on in Congress, which may be extremely relevant to students. Schumer’s entertainingly titled “ROBOCOP” bill would work to stop annoying robocalls. Slaughter has previously voted to reduce the interest rate on Stafford loans, and her website states support for protecting the Pell grant, which many RIT students rely on for funding.

There are 89,500 local governments in the U.S., 50 state governments and, of course, our eminently prominent federal union. Even if you vote in a home community outside of the Rochester area, do take some time to familiarize yourself with the issues.

“Being aware of the process and being aware of how important your vote actually is, I think, is really empowering,” Howard said.

When you inevitably grow tired of pointless email probes and Kardashian-style coverage of Trump’s latest tweet, take a look at your local and state governments.

You might be surprised at the options you find.

“Being aware of the process and being aware of how important your vote actually is, I think, is really empowering.”

Leisure 13

by Alyssa Minko

14 Leisure

PETTY POLITICS

by Rozie Yeghiazarian | illustration by Unique Fair | design by Paula Piedrahita

“W

e have in our two major party candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, two figures who have been in the public eye for an uncommonly long time,” said RIT Department of History professor Michael Brown. “How can you reach for something so new and so bold that it will cause a revision in public opinion about figures for whom public opinion has been able to coalesce for years?”

Already having such established public personas, the candidates have had to dig deeper into their offensive, from prying at old wounds to picking fresh fights. They’ve tried it all to attempt swaying the public. As a result, this presidential election has centered around ideals rather than actual policy.

A GAME OF IDENTITY “There’s a pleasant fiction that elections are about ideas,” said RIT Department of Political Science professor Sarah Burns. “The goal is to have an inclusive environment where everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and live the American dream. Now what you see in Trump supporters especially, is this idea that the economy is actually a zero-sum game.” Burns explained that Trump is using identity as a means to segregate his voter base between those who will and will not benefit from his propositions.

To Brown, it appeared as though Trump markets himself around the fact that “he will not engage in politically correct speech, and that politically correct speech is somehow not forthright.

16 Features

“POLITICS HAS REALLY BEEN A BLOOD SPORT FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.”

“[His] status as a kind of truth-teller ... goes like ‘intelligent’ or ‘inspirational’ and see into his mantra of being a businessman, not a professors of which subject and which politician,” Brown said. “That allowed Trump gender are more likely to be described by to cut through a Republican primary field that either of those terms in their student’s eyes. was replete with figures who were widely In an op-ed for the Oregonian, Petula seen as up-and-coming members of the party.”

Dvorak brought another curious gendered Burns referred to Trump as “the billionaire schism to light between the two candidates. every-man”; This identity and its portrayal Merely being a woman in her late 60s puts through Trump’s public persona follows Clinton at a disadvantage, as women at her through “his personal branding as a sort of, age are supposed to be “invisible,” she argues. no BS, shoot from the hip kind of person.”

The piece goes on to elaborate the sort of For Clinton, identity is a challenging “ageist misogyny that older women face.” “double-bind,” as Burns phrased it. Trump Carroll believed Clinton is defying cultural has attempted to taint Clinton’s campaign norms. She said that the same kind of with a notably risqué topic: “Donald Trump “gendered language” has not been used against has dredged [Bill Clinton’s sex scandal] up Clinton’s opponent. “Hillary’s gender is seen from the past to continue to have it haunt as a factor in the race, where it’s just not for Hillary and question her credentials today,” Donald Trump,” he said. said School of Communication professor Hinda Mandell. “We expect her to behave as a wife, as a first lady,” Mandell continued.

“We really expect too much of her in terms GROUNDED POLITICS of how she reacts.”

“A lot of commentators this election cycle The sort of slimy campaigning we see have been talking about how she’s kind of between Clinton and Trump dates as far back damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t,” as 1796 and 1800. Brown noted that at that said RIT Department of History professor time, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had Tamar Carroll about Clinton. “If she sticks employed surrogates to churn out severe up for herself she’s seen as aggressive, if she allegations against one another. Ultimately, doesn’t stick up for herself, she’s a doormat.” a sex scandal emerged revealing that Adams Female leaders in many professions had been sleeping with his slave Sally deal with this same double standard. A Hemings. Additionally, according to Brown, New York Times article equated the issue Andrew Jackson was later alleged to be to the classroom, where male instructors living in sin with a married woman and John tend to be viewed as smarter than female Quincy Adams was said to have procured professors. The article references an American virgins to appease the sexual interactive chart made by a history professor appetite of the Russian czar. Even Grover from Northeastern University, Benjamin Cleveland was revealed to have fathered a Schmidt, into which users may type words son out of wedlock.

“Politics has really been a blood sport for a long, long time,” concluded Brown.

In previous elections, marketing has often spoken through metaphors. Brown stated that Trump’s tendency to enact a sense of “individualism run amok” provides a slew of situations from which Clinton’s campaign may hand pick and “simply repurpose” in their media against Trump.

Burns noted that Clinton’s approach is “more in the traditional realm of what kind of dirty fighting you can do in politics.” She found the commercials to be somewhat unsettling. Reminding viewers that children are also watching the messages Trump is saying to be somewhat unsettling, Burns made it clear that she would rather see the candidates “trying to elevate the dialogue.”

Burns also criticized Trump for parading misleading information of highly biased voter polls that claimed he had won the initial debate. She believes this sort of deliberate misinformation has a negative impact on the electorate, running the risk of causing voters to mistrust truthful information on the suspicion of faulty claims.

This sort of dirty politics is most evident between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump because of the teetering, seemingly empty platforms they stand on.

“The personal invective sort of stands alone in the absence of substantive policy debates, and therefore looks more prominent because it’s thrown into starker relief,” said Brown. Rather than raising the dialogue, they have defaulted to petty disputes towards the other’s character. Voters may be left wanting more, but they’re certainly getting a show.

Features 17

THE RIT TRIUMVIRATE

by Kevin Zampieron|Illustration by Alyssa Minko|Design by Kevin Zampieron

by Taylor Derrisaw | photography by Catie Rafferty | design by Kevin Zampieron

B

efore you have even set foot on RIT property, a series of events, meetings, late nights and a menagerie of emails have helped create a welcoming, studentdriven, open environment for you. An institution as large as RIT requires more teamwork and planning than most businesses do over their lifetime, and the institution spends a respectable amount of time ensuring policies are up to date, the curriculum is responsive to real world changes and that students and faculty operate in a learning conducive environment.

It can be easy for some RIT students to dismiss or be unaware of the decisionmaking process at RIT, but it’s important to understand how decisions are made and how similar individuals with different constituents interact with one another to make RIT the successful institution it is today.

At RIT there are three governance groups: Student Government (SG), Academic Senate and Staff Council. Each of the governance

18 Features

groups interacts with the others regularly.

For example, SG has a member of Academic Senate who sits in during its meetings. They also have a member of the Board of Trustees who sits in during the meetings as well — but more on the Board later.

Student Government

SG is probably the most recognizable governance group on campus, as all of its members are student-elected representatives.

Accordingly, a lot of the issues that the group focuses on involve student-related issues. SG meets multiple times throughout the week to discuss planning, committees and various other issues. They also have a weekly open meeting every Friday from 2 to 4 p.m. in the Bamboo Room.

Their main route of student input is through PawPrints, an online program that started in 2014 with the goal of allowing students the opportunity to have their voices heard by SG.

Any student with an RIT account can log in and either create or sign petitions. Petitions can cover many topics, from petitioning administration to flying the Black Lives Matter flag to getting Wi-Fi in outdoor spaces.

Once a petition has reached 200 signatures, the writer and signers of the petition are guaranteed a response by SG. However, a petition doesn’t necessarily need to reach 200 signatures in order to receive a response.

“Sometimes [petitions] that don’t have 200, we’ll still respond because they’re still important, or maybe it’s a smaller constituent group,” current SG president and fourth year Graphic Design major Andrea Shaver said.

Shaver and current vice president and fifth year Computer Engineering student Amar Bhatt are both heavily involved in the petition process. Although they don’t directly oversee each and every petition that goes up, they are responsible for guiding both senators and cabinet members in achieving their goals.

“My day-to-day is to supervise [the senators] in their initiatives, and reach their goals ... [make sure] that they know who to talk to,” Bhatt said.

After SG decides whether or not to pursue the petition, a charge will be created. This is when the senate is informed about the petition, what it entails and what its goals are.

From there, it will be assigned by the senate to a specific senator, committee or Major Student Organization (MSO).

In order to facilitate each petition’s goals, SG has a series of committees that all handle specific petitions. For instance, the Deaf Advocacy Committee handles matters that are important to the Deaf community. In this case, many of the things the committee tackles involve concerns about accessibility. Another example is the Technology Committee, which handles charges related to technological improvements around campus, such as the outdoor Wi-Fi petition. These committees will then work with administration to develop a plan for implementation. Sometimes petitions are unfeasible, in which case they will then be dropped.

In order to facilitate communication with the other governance groups, Shaver sits in on the Academic Senate to make sure student voices are represented.

Academic Senate

Academic Senate consists of multiple departments that aid different constituents — namely faculty — but students are

represented by the president of SG. As their names suggest, the student side of Academic Senate focuses on policies that will mainly affect students, while the faculty side focuses on changes and policies that affect the staff of the university.

“The Academic Senate is the governance group that represents mostly the faculty ... although the university is taking a very liberal perspective in being inclusive with other players who matter to the academic mission of the university,” Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs Jeremy Haefner said.

Additionally, the senate is divided into a series of committees and subcommittees, much in the same way that SG is. As with SG, different committees handle different matters.

For example, the Student Affairs Committee of Academic Senate is currently working on developing a paper that will highlight how to best encourage consistent grading practices.

Most issues that appear before the Academic Senate include things that apply to the curriculum at RIT. All new academic programs must come through Academic Senate. The provost will then make recommendations to the president, who then makes the final decision.

“The senate is a recommending body; ultimately they just make recommendations.

The understanding is that the president and I don’t interfere with that process,” Haefner said.

Staff Council

As SG focuses on student issues and the Academic Senate focuses on curriculum revisions, the Staff Council’s responsibilities include policy revisions and recommendations. The council is organized in the same manner as SG and Academic Senate, with committees handling a variety of issues.

According to their website, “Staff Council is an advisory body to the president ... on issues and decisions that impact Rochester Institute of Technology.”

In recent years, the council has worked with the other governance groups to pass a number of resolutions. A few examples include the new smoking policy as well as the formation of the Pedestrian Safety Task Force. In order to tackle concerns like these, the council’s website has a suggestion system where any member of the RIT community can submit new ideas. Anyone who submits has a chance of winning a $25 RIT Dining gift card.

It may not be obvious from the outside, but a lot of work goes into ensuring that students and faculty have a healthy, organized and welcoming community at RIT. From new policies to an expansion of the curriculum or funding for new recreational activities, the three governance bodies do their best to make RIT the best.

Features 19

Y T PA R HA R D A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF 2016’s POLITICAL PARTIES

by Kevin Zampieron | illustration by Alyssa Minko | design by Kevin Zampieron

I

t’s that time again in American politics where everything comes to a head and explodes like an overripe boil. Yes, it’s November, and it’s time for us to finally pick our next president (if you live in Florida, that is).

Even so, after years of preparation and endless news coverage, great swaths of Americans don’t know or care much about their choices for president or the parties they represent. To enrich their political experience, here are overviews of the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian and Green Parties.

Although our political system is based around two parties, this article also discusses the two most prominent third parties. Sorry, Constitution Party!

DEMOCRATS: A LINGERING BERNING SENSATION Founded in 1828, the Democratic Party is the oldest active political party in the U.S. and the world. However, the party has undergone some pretty dramatic internal

20 Features

shifts. With its focus on limited government, strict constitutionalism and state’s rights, the Democrats of the 19th century were a lot closer to modern Republicans and Libertarians.

Democrats began to splinter throughout the early to mid 20th century; Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal had vastly expanded the scope of government while the party became more labor-friendly. Conservative southern Democrats fully split from the party during the civil rights movement in the 1960s, leading to the solidly Republican south we have today.

During the 70s and 80s, the political landscape shifted considerably in favor of Republicans. Democrats struggled in the face of the Reagan years. The victory of Bill Clinton in 1992 brought forward yet another internal party shift: while the Democrats remained the socially progressive party, they became more economically centrist. This “third-way” won the resurgent Democratic Party a two-term presidency, but alienated much of the party’s more progressive elements.

After a spirited yet ultimately slanted

primary, Hillary Clinton emerged as the 2016 presidential candidate. Yet, the ghost of Bernie Sanders’ very liberal campaign remains, as does the party’s split in the wake of the 2016 primary. The RIT College Democrats still feel the aftershocks.

“We only had one big Hillary supporter, but the rest of us were pro-Bernie Sanders. It was kind of sad for most of us when he didn’t get the nomination,” said Jacob Smyth, a second year Industrial Engineering major. Smyth, the treasurer of the RIT College Democrats, described the club as somewhat reluctant to back their party’s candidate.

“I think we’re united around Hillary, but to varying degrees of enthusiasm,” said Smyth.

This lack of enthusiasm toward Clinton is especially endemic in the college student demographic. Though it only accounted for 17 percent of overall voters, Sanders had very strong support in the youth vote; during the Democratic primaries, Sanders managed to capture an impressive 70 percent of the under-30 vote, according to primary exit polls.

Unfortunately for Clinton, this kind of support doesn’t disappear overnight.

“It’s disconcerting to see two major candidates with two high unfavorability rates,” said Smyth. In particular, Clinton’s favorability with the under-30 demographic was at just 39 percent at the end of the primary season, according to an ABC poll (Donald Trump’s favorability is a dismal 19 percent).

Though Clinton’s brand of moderate incrementalism may be feasible, it fails to inspire the Sanders-level excitement or passion in the youth vote.

“You have to make big promises, whether or not you can deliver,” said Smyth. “If you don’t appeal to people’s hopes, and in some cases their fears, you don’t really appeal to them at all.”

After this primary, the future of the Democratic Party is uncertain. The strength of Sanders’ support in the party’s younger voters in undeniable, but the longevity of his movement is still under question. Smyth remains hopeful.

“Out of all the candidates, I think [Sanders] placed the most emphasis on there having to be a revolution,” said Smyth. “Now we have

to focus on getting a progressive Congress.”

There may be a progressive revolution in the future, but what that revolution will look like is anyone’s guess.

GREENS: THE REVOLUTION WILL BE RETWEETED “There’s no way we’re going to get the results we want from the two-party system,” says third year Journalism major Nigel Blair.

“Advocating for change from the inside doesn’t work. It’s impossible.”

Blair, who represents RIT’s branch of the International Socialist Organization, supports Green Party candidate Jill Stein. The Green Party began as the Association of State Green Parties in the mid-90s. They are self-described “eco-socialists” and exist for progressives who don’t feel that the Democratic Party represents their values, with a focus on a pacifist foreign policy.

“The organization I’m a part of advocates for Stein because she is a decent alternative to

the two major parties. She holds our working class values,” said Blair.

Stein currently has dismal poll numbers, and holds various fringe views that make her unpalatable to the vast majority of Americans. For example, she would pardon whistleblower Edward Snowden before giving him a position in her presidential cabinet. Also besides being elected a town hall member in her hometown of Lexington, Massachusetts, she has never held an elected office. But Stein holds more clout as a leftwing protest vote than an actual candidate, even to her supporters.

“Jill Stein exists in the abstract because there is no way of her winning. It’s unfortunate, but it is the reality of the situation,” said Blair. To supporters of Stein, a full break from the two party system should be pursued, regardless of who wins the presidency.

“If we get anything out of this, we have to remain principled and provide alternative answers and actions to the two party system and capitalism itself,” said Blair.

Features 21

REPUBLICANS: THE GRAND OLD DUMPSTER FIRE On the other side of the aisle are the Republicans. Also known as the Grand Old Party (GOP), the Republican Party was founded as an anti-slavery party in the mid-19th century. After the Civil War, the party became the party of big business. In the early 20th century, the Republican Party also developed a progressive coalition, which clashed with its more conservative members.

The party then lost its political stronghold in the decades after the Great Depression, as the Republican economic policies in the decade prior were perceived to have helped cause the financial collapse.

During the civil rights movement of the 60s, Republicans began to appeal to former Democrats who left the party over the issue of segregation and state’s rights. The turning point for the party was in 1964 when hard-right conservative Barry Goldwater was nominated over the liberal Republican challenger Nelson Rockefeller; this ousted the more moderate members of the party in favor 22 Features

of the more conservative ones.

By getting the support of the pro-business wing, the religious right and blue-collar social conservatives, Republican Ronald Reagan won both of his elections in veritable landslides. His success changed the makeup of the party into what we have today — at least, until recently.

Donald Trump’s success in becoming the Republican Party’s nominee is unprecedented, to say the least. A moderately successful businessman and reality TV show host, Trump shifted himself into the modern political arena when he claimed that current president Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya. Trump’s presidential aspirations centered around stricter immigration policies, building a wall on our southern border and “Making America Great Again.”

Trump, who has never been elected to a public office, was victorious over multiple senators and governors. His campaign has been characterized by gaffes, racially charged rhetoric and unconventional campaigning.

The column of Trump’s support is mostly comprised of white men with no college education, a group that Trump leads Clinton

on by 59 percent, according to an ABC News/ Washington Post poll. But another predictor of who is more likely to support Trump is a voter’s bent toward authoritarianism, according to a study by political scientist Matthew MacWilliams. MacWilliams found that Trump supporters were more likely to report a fear of “the other” and a willingness to follow leaders when compared to the other Republican candidates.

Many things that Trump says and does create a crisis of conscience in the Republican Party. Many prominent Republicans, including both former Presidents Bush and 2012 nominee Mitt Romney, refuse to endorse Trump. Others, like Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, refuse to defend or campaign for Trump, yet also refuse to take back their endorsement. Some elements of the far right such as neo-Nazis and white nationalists accept Trump’s candidacy as a step forward for their movements, while the more moderate coalition of Republicans are at a loss. This situation provides a tough question for American conservatives: at what point is your candidate no longer even reluctantly supportable?

LIBERTARIANS: SMALL GOVERNMENT, SLIM CHANCES Perhaps your answer to this question lies with former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s candidate for 2016. The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 as a reaction to the Vietnam war and the end of the gold standard. The party advocates small government in all respects and defers to the free market. Besides the election of 1980 in which they received almost a million votes, the Libertarian Party has existed on the political fringe for the majority of its life. But 2012 saw the party receive over a million votes with a total one percent of the electorate.

2016 could be the third party’s big moment, considering the electorate’s large scale discontent with the two major candidates. The Johnson campaign is using the dissatisfaction to their advantage, said Dan Percora, assistant field director for the Gary Johnson team in Oregon.

“The Johnson/Weld ticket is trying to pull the numerous Democrats and Republicans that find Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump unfavorable,” said Pecora. “In turn, this is causing them to be a little more mainstream than other Libertarian presidential candidates have been in the past.” Pecora added that Johnson supported the abolishment of the IRS, the Board of Education and replacing the tax code with a 29 percent consumption tax.

That hints towards the central struggle of

the Libertarian Party: can the party become a national one in spite of its radical doctrine?

Pecora believes that the Libertarian Party will overtake the Republicans, and the tipping point will be LGBT issues.

“Both Democrats and Libertarians believe that the LGBT community should have the same rights as the heterosexual community, which is a pretty popular stance among millennials regardless of what political party you are affiliated with,” said Pecora. Support for gay marriage has been a remarkably consistent issue for the Libertarian Party; they’ve supported it since the party’s inception. On the other hand, the Libertarian Party came out against bill H.R 1913 in 2009, which would have classified attacks on LGBT people as hate crimes. Libertarian distaste toward protecting disadvantaged peoples via government is so stalwart that support over the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a hotly debated issue within the party.

Although he’s polling higher than most third party candidates do, Johnson still has virtually no chance of winning this election. He is hedging his bets on winning New Mexico, his home state, where he is currently polling at 25 percent, according to Washington Post polls. The goal is to possibly keep either Clinton and Trump from reaching 270 electoral votes by having them both lose that state. In this case, the House of Representatives would decide the presidency, at which point, Johnson hopes, he would be given the presidency based on the Republican congress’s distaste for their own nominee.

Beyond that convoluted series of events,

Libertarians aim to get at least 5 percent of the popular vote, which gets a party federal funding — there’s a certain irony in Libertarians vying for federal funding, but that’s beside the point.

“With this funding, we will be able to make a run at Congressional and Senate seats in future elections,” said Pecora. “The future of the Libertarian Party is bright.” Even at the tail end of one election cycle, the political parties are preparing for the next one.

It seems plainly obvious, however, that the American people are glad this election season is coming to a close. It’s been absurdly long and contentious, and after 597 days of election news, everyone’s exhausted. “[This election] is one I’d rather read about in the history books than live through,” said Smyth.

This seems to be a pretty common sentiment. But when the history books write about the election of 2016, what are they going to say? Will they talk about the election of the first woman president, or the election of the first reality TV host as president? Will it be a positive referendum on the work of our first black president, or will it be a sharp, racially charged rebuke of his brand of liberalism? Will it be the beginning of the end for the two-party system, or will the Libertarian and Green parties fade into obscurity like the many third parties before them?

Regardless of what the history books say, one can only hope that they are kind to us. Or at the very least, patiently understanding.

EVEN AT THE TAIL END OF ONE ELECTION CYCLE, THE POLITICAL PARTIES ARE PREPARING FOR THE NEXT ONE Features 23

INSEPARABLE: THE HISTORY OF

POLITICAL

PROTEST WITHIN SPORTS

by Ryan Black illustration by Stephanie Chan design by Emma Fleming

I

gniting much discussion this year, athletes like Colin Kaepernick and Megan Rapinoe have been subject to attention for their endeavors to stand in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement. By kneeling during the playing of the national anthem, both Kapernick and Rapinoe have strived to use their celebrity to highlight issues which they — and many others — see as injustices that need to be addressed. While these protests may be filling up today’s headlines, the prospect of athletes taking stances on larger social issues is not new.

THE POWER AND IMPORTANCE OF SPORTS AS A PLATFORM One of the most memorable moments of this kind occurred when American gold medalist Tomie Smith and bronze medalist John Carlos raised their arms in the Black Power Salute after their victories in the 200-meter race of the 1968 Olympics.

“In 1968, there was upheaval in the United States,” said Dr. Tamar Carroll of RIT’s Department of History. “This had to do with the anti-war movement, the civil rights moment, frustration about racial inequality and the slowness of responding to calls for change. The nation felt like it was at war with itself.”

24 Sports

Carroll pointed out how a unique venue like the Olympics allowed for Smith and Carlos’ message to resonate globally. “[Other countries] had seen African American children being attacked by Bull Connor’s dogs,” said Carroll. “People around the world had seen the repression of African American Civil Rights activists and they understood about the struggle.” Smith and Carlos’s gesture conveyed that Civil Rights had not been enough, that there was a need for “black power” and even black leadership.

This message resonated in countries like South Africa, whose black citizens were still suffering under apartheid.

According to Dr. Michael Brown, also of RIT’s Department of History, when athletes like Smith and Carlos become spokespeople it disrupts the notion that sports are this “ideal” world, one that is completely cut off from politics.

“There’s an idea that sports are kind of a better version of the society in which they happen,” Brown said. “Sports have been written about, talked about and depicted in film in such a way to make them schools of virtue — models for how we should be.”

Brown said that many fans see sports teams as an embodiment of their city or even country and, by extension, the best of their spirit or character. Yet, as Brown pointed out, “when one of those athletes turns around and

holds up a mirror to that society and says, ‘Instead of looking at the sporting world as a representation of your virtue, take a look at this,’ it disrupts the cultural role that sports play.”

Take for instance the often idealized story of Jesse Owens, an African American runner remembered for going into Hitler’s Germany and winning in the face of the Nazi’s racist ideology. His victory was juxtaposed with the reality of the rampant racism within America during the mid-1930s.

ATHLETES AS RESPECTED VOICES Several athletes have exercised their influence outside of their sport, as well.

Muhammad Ali’s refusal to enlist in the Vietnam War had quite an impact on how the anti-war movement was perceived. At the time, protests against the war were primarily led by college-aged adults, including some of those in the counterculture moment. Those who were pro-war tended to be older and generally disregarded those rebelling as young and ignorant.

“So there is a way in which they could dismiss their sincere political concerns, whereas somebody like Ali was older and well respected” said Carroll. “Ali was a powerful symbol and he wasn’t a part of the counter

culture.” Objections by figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Ali lent credence to the activists, because they could not be easily ignored.

Brown noted how our society has, for the most part, widely revered athletes. Sports have in many cases allowed individuals to achieve a level of status with which they can express themselves and be heard, a public awareness that might not be given to others. That is why he believes it is no coincidence that such spokespeople are often people of color or women.

“Because African Americans have been systematically denied access to political, social and economic positions that could become those platforms, athletes and entertainers have been a kind of leading edge of publicly visible, publicly recognized and publicly respected African American

figures,” said Brown. He also pointed to the vocally critical athlete Jackie Robinson, who called for more black managers in baseball, as an example.

HOW IT HAS EVOLVED IN TODAY’S MEDIA LANDSCAPE Carroll pointed out that today there are fewer times when everyone is watching one broadcast of an event like the 1968 Olympics.

Still, as one of the last mainstays of what Carol terms “mass audience television,” sports still retain much of their influencing power.

“You might have an opportunity to see the act of protest in an unmediated way, an unfiltered way,” said Brown. “So you’re not seeing footage from earlier in the day on the news with news caster commentary around

it, and the clip being packaged in certain ways.”

Brown also pointed out how outlets like Twitter have made us far more used to athletes having a voice. “We are getting used to athletes as people who don’t just do things with their bodies, but they also use their brains and they have a voice as well as a physique,” he said.

Kaepernick and Rapinoe are just two athletes who exemplify this trend. Each uses platforms like Twitter, and Rapinoe also uses “The Players’ Tribune,” an outlet which publishes first-person stories written by professional athletes. One can clearly see them strive to be public figures who articulate and advocate ideas for change.

Sports 25

Our Elections Are Stupid:

HOW TO MAKE THEM LESS DUMB

by Bryanne McDonough illustration by Monica Nguyen-Vo design by Carina Singeltary and Alyssa Minko

F

irst off, screw the two-party system.

Secondly, screw the electoral college.

Oh, and first-past-the-post (FPTP) is dumb AF. FPTP is a voting system in which voters select the candidate of their choice on the ballot and the candidate that gets the most votes wins, unlike past presidential elections where that wasn’t necessarily true — let’s not forget we all forget the 2000 election when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency. Leaving the (stupid) electoral college out of it, FPTP has many problems just by virtue of existing. But it doesn’t have to be that way, my friends. It doesn’t have to be terrible.

26 Views

An instant-runoff voting (IRV) system would fix many problems presented here. It has the potential to change the way voters approach elections, give hope to third parties and bring out new voters. Most importantly, it could make our voices heard.

PROBLEMS WITH FPTP

To start with, FPTP encourages tactical voting. This current election, more than ever, highlights this problem. There are many voters who will vote not based on who they think the best president would be, but based on who they don’t want to be president.

Many voters feel that they must vote for the “lesser of two evils” between the Democrats

and Republicans, because voting third party would effectively take votes away from the candidate they think would mess up the least.

While this sentiment is essentially irrelevant unless you live in a swing state, it exists and will affect many voters’ decisions.

The current system only encourages the two major parties because voters see them as the only options. Voting for other parties may feel like a waste of a vote. FPTP also encourages gerrymandering — the practice of dividing up constituencies to unfairly favor a certain party. By ensuring that there are a small number of districts with many “Blue” voters, a “Red” party can win by a small majority in a large number of districts.

w

ww

INSTANT-RUNOFF VOTING Let’s make America not terrible.

IRV starts with a ballot that allows you to rank candidates according to your preference.

The top-ranked candidate on each ballot is then tallied up. If a candidate gets more than 50 percent of these votes, they win. However, if there is no clear majority, the candidate with the fewest votes gets removed from the election and from the rankings on each ballot.

That candidate’s voters then get distributed according to their second choice. The topranked candidates of each ballot are counted again and the process continues until one candidate is the top remaining choice.

Say there are two similar candidates, Alice and Bob, who share 60 percent of voters.

Another candidate, Carl, has the other 40 percent. If Alice and Bob split their voting pool 25/35, Carl has the simple majority and would win in an FPTP system. However, in IRV, voters supporting Alice would put Bob as their second choice, and vice versa. Then, Alice would get eliminated and in the second round all of Alice’s 25 percent of voters would go to support Bob and he would win.

That’s just common sense. If the majority of voters would prefer either Alice or Bob to Carl, then either Alice or Bob should win. But that’s not how America does things.

MINORITY VOTES MATTER (Disclaimer: This is not about racial/ ethnic/sexual/romantic/gender minorities,

although their votes do matter.) A vote that goes to a losing candidate that maybe nobody even knows about should matter while not being “wasted.” The point of a vote is to tell the government what you want, what you think your country/state/town should be like and what laws need to exist. If you believe a candidate is the best for the job, but a more popular candidate would be your second choice, you should be able to express that. In an FPTP system, a voter may be more inclined to vote for a more popular candidate so that an undesirable candidate doesn’t win. If this happens, the less popular candidate can’t show that their position is one that is still supported by some voters.

We can’t tell the government what we want them to do if our votes don’t represent what we want. An IRV system would allow voters to vote for what they believe while allowing the most preferred candidate to win. Every vote should matter, even if that vote chooses the least popular candidate as their top choice.

IMPLEMENTING IRV

It isn’t easy to implement a new system of voting. IRV is already used in several cities for mayoral and other positions. The only statewide IRV election was in North Carolina for an opening in the State Court of Appeals in 2010, but the legislation that allowed this was later repealed. If we want to vote with this system, legislatures need to be pressured to change the existing laws.

The effort will be well worth it, though.

FairVote.org, an advocacy organization for IRV, conducted research that showed voter turnout increased by 10 points when rankedchoice voting was compared to traditional voting methods. Arguments against IRV will say that it may be too difficult to understand.

However, research shows that 84 percent of voters understood ranked-choice voting “somewhat well” compared to 83 percent for understanding FPTP.

IRV IS JUST THE BEGINNING

There are many things wrong with our current system. IRV won’t eliminate gerrymandering, the electoral college, the two-party system or our business-funded politicians. It is, however, a step in the right direction. Constituents’ voices could be heard better than ever before. With thirdparty candidates getting more voice, we can work on the two-party system and vote for candidates who decline donations from big businesses and call out what needs fixing.

It will be long and arduous, but this journey will give us a country that is under our control and a government that has to listen.

‘‘

WE CAN’T TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO IF OUR VOTES DON’T REPRESENT WHAT WE WANT.

The opinions expressed are solely those of the students and do not reflect the views of REPORTER

‘‘ Views 27

Word on the Street

WOTS

photography by Rebekah Havens | design by Dasha Buduchina

Jonathan Martin Packaging Science, Fifth year “I’m dating this girl right now who’s super political, which is different from me. She has a lot of political views; I had none. So I listen to what she says. I’m like “Okay, cool, I vibe with that” or “I don’t vibe with that.” But I’m so detached from media. It sounds ignorant, but I find my peace and happiness in other ways and I don’t like to let that dictate how I should feel about my life, based on what’s being given to me. Your happiness is your decision, what you choose to focus on.”

Jacqueline Devine Mechanical Engineering Technology, Fifth year “My mom is a big political influence for me. She’s very vocal about her opinions — it doesn’t matter who’s in the room, who’s listening, she just tells it like it is.

I’ve always respected that.”

Michael Burpoe Graphic Design, Fourth year “My political views have changed a lot since coming to college because I am a design major and I’m around people who are a little bit more progressive and a little bit more willing to accept other opinions and outside views. But where I come from is very conservative, so I definitely have a little bit more conservative of a heart just from where I grew up. It’s kind of two sides.”

28 Views

Who in your life has shaped your political views?

Megan Badders Graphic Design, First year “I think one of the people who has influenced me the most in politics would be both of my parents.

Because economically speaking they’ve always dealt with money, and our having four kids in our family has made me think differently about politics.”

John Moricone Software Engineering, Second year “John Stewart from ‘The Daily Show.’ I think it’s funny. I’ve watched it a lot, especially during high school. I liked the satire. A lot of people our age do get their news from “The Daily Show” or “The Colbert Report,” when that was still on-air. It gives us information in a way where we can appreciate it and laugh because it’s not as serious.

I think the political debates are boring; I don’t enjoy watching them.”

Anita Raghuraman Communication and Media Technologies, Graduate student “I would say it’s mostly media.

Because today’s media has so much strength and it’s such a powerful medium, I think your opinions change based on what’s being projected. I follow news and I follow news from different channels, not just from one network. So that shapes my thinking. Since I get too many different opinions, it does affect my ability to think originally, but it also helps by keeping me updated and making me open to the world and to what’s happening.”

Thaarika Charumathy Seetharaman Communication and Media Technologies, Graduate student “It’s always my dad. It’s always his values that matter the most to me.

I’ve grown with his ideas. He always gives me information; I do not keep myself updated with politics, but it’s always been his likes that influence me. So when it comes to politics, too, it’s been my dad’s opinions, my dad’s likes and dislikes.”

Josiah Klossner Mechanical Engineering, Third year “It wasn’t about who influenced my political views, it was reading articles and looking things up.

Thomas Sowell was an author that I read a lot of. He comes from a conservative point of view. He influenced some of the ways I think about politics. I feel like his thought process has rubbed off a little bit.

He’s really good at expressing himself and he seems to have logical reasons. He actually lays it out whereas some people give an emotional reason.”

Marilyn Groppe Computing Exploration, First year “Probably my dad. Mostly because we argue about politics a lot, and so he’ll say things that will make me think about my opinions. It was good for me to have my opinions challenged and to actually think about it, because I tended to be a fairly extreme thinker. To see the middle ground helped me figure out where I stand on most issues.”

Jack Balk Mechanical Engineering Technology, Second year “I guess your peers and their political views. Say, if they don’t like Trump then they’d talk shit about him, and obviously that could reinforce in your mind or can change it so you see their side of it.”

The opinions expressed are solely those of the students and do not reflect the views of REPORTER

Dylan Wainwright Photojournalism, First year “What’s interesting about my political views is that personally, it wasn’t one person. It was a group of people being in a subculture. Being involved in punk and hardcore music, and when I was younger getting into hip hop. Music basically informed my political views. Getting into punk made me see on a broader scale. I’m a very left-leaning person, and it’s not the definitive political ideology within the genre, but the people that I was around had similar leaning ideologies. My parents were also somewhat left-leaning. Their instilling “be a good person,” “care about others,” “listen to other people” and being in that kind of environment, I strayed toward politics that I felt resonated with that.”

Victoria McGowen Computer Science Graduate student “My mom, because of her line of work. I’m a diplomat’s kid, so having to be in a political environment helped. And she’s very loud and opinionated, and we often bump heads, but it was nice to have somebody to bump heads with who was accepting.”

Laura Gordon Photographic sciences, Third year “My parents definitely influenced my political views, but also just how I grew up and the situation I grew up in and the beliefs that I have influenced my political views. In this election when social media says ‘lesser of two evils’ and ‘they both suck,’ I definitely do not believe that is the case and I think that the situation that I grew up in was the biggest influence on that belief.”

Frank Sankey Mechanical Engineering Technology, Second year “I guess Hitler’s a bad dude.

Winston Churchill’s a good guy.”

Views 29

RINGS

The opinions expressed are solely those of the students and do not reflect the views of REPORTER

compiled by Jake Krajewski | design by Rebecca Wolinski

10/6/16 | 9:36 p.m.

Man, your Patronus is showing.

You might want to reel in the three headed snake a bit.

9/12/16 | 6:08 p.m.

10/12/16 | 5:05 p.m.

The kid sitting in front of me in class’s computer

The best antidote for stress is apathy.

screen just says “STUDENT LOAN HELL” in gigantic letters.

10/10/16 | 10:41 p.m.

10/7/16 | 10:34 p.m.

I miss the days when I wasn’t old

Boy do I love folding laundry and finding

enough to say “I miss the days...”

two socks and a thong that aren’t mine.

Have something to say? TEXT or Call US! 585.672.4840 30 Views

REPORTER is always hiring!

Positions at the REPORTER offer real world experience with an awesome team.

Oh, and did we mention that we pay?

designers

illustrators

General meetings are at 5 p.m. every Friday in A-730 in the Campus Center Basement.

Absolutely anyone can stop by!

photographers

writers

For a design or illustration position contact: rptart@rit.edu For a photography position contact: rptphoto@rit.edu For a writing position contact: Call us! (585) 475-2212

Strong Fertility Center

Want to help by donating eggs?

If you are a healthy, non-smoking woman between 21 – 27, you can earn $5,000 while helping couples achieve their dream of having a baby by donating your eggs.

For more information, or to apply online, visit fertility.urmc.edu or call (585) 487-3378.

Open House NOVEMBER 12TH | 10AM–5PM @ PARK POINT & THE PROVINCE

Save $150 with zero deposit

WALK OR BIKE TO CLASS

F U L LY F U R N I S H E D A PA R T M E N T S & T O W N H O M E S

P R I VAT E B E D R O O M S & B AT H R O O M S A VA I L A B L E

A M E N I T I E S F O R A F I T & H E A LT H Y L I F E S T Y L E

A C A D E M I C A L LY- O R I E N T E D E N V I R O N M E N T S

ALL UTILITIES INCLUDED

Apply online today at

AMERICANCAMPUS.COM PROUD SUPPORTER OF RIT HOCKEY Fees, date, amenities & utilities included are subject to change. Electricity included up to a monthly allowance. See office for details.