A look at the 2024 elections from Suffolk County
By Mariam Guirgis
As Suffolk County approaches the 2024 general election, residents are presented with a diverse list of candidates across various local offices.
For the Stony Brook University community, understanding these candidates is crucial given their potential impact on local policies affecting education, healthcare and community services.
Here’s an overview of the candidates from Suffolk County, including their backgrounds, platforms and opponents:
United States Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand (incumbent Democrat) has been a leading voice in the Senate on issues related to military reform, gender equality and healthcare since 2009.
She has introduced numerous bills aimed at sexual assualt and misconduct reporting in the military. Gillibrand has pushed for expanded coverage through the Affordable Care Act. She supports lowering the medicare age and has introduced bills to lower prescription drug prices. Gillibrand also is fighting to create a national paid family leave program.
Gillibrand also supported legislation to address climate change, promote renewable energy and reduce carbon emissions.
Michael D. Sapraicone (Republican) is a former New York Police Department detective and private security executive.
Sapraicone’s policies focus on cutting taxes, particularly for small businesses, and giving more federal education funding for schools.
He has been critical of policies that he claims have led to a rise in crime and a lack of support for law enforcement. Sapraicone supports stronger sentencing laws for violent criminals and opposes bail reform.
Diane Sare (LaRouche) represents the LaRouche movement, which promotes Lyndon LaRouche’s far-right ideas and runs on a platform calling for a change in the financial system and international relations.
Sare believes that the current financial system is on the brink of collapse and that radical change. She is advocating a return to the Glass-Steagall Act to separate commercial and investment banking and increased federal
investment in infrastructure projects. Sare is critical of the U.S.’s interventions in foreign conflicts. She advocates for peaceful diplomatic engagements and less overseas intervention.
Justice of the Supreme Court, 10th Judicial District
James F. Matthews, Jr. (Democrat, Republican, Conservative) earned his law degree from St. John’s University School of Law. Matthews, Jr. started out as an attorney for the Village of Northport and the Town of Huntington before his judicial appointment He was appointed as a District Court Judge in 2015. He then became an Acting County Court Judge.
Gregg Roth (Democrat, Republican, Conservative) has a long legal career with experience in both private practice and public service. He dealt with a wide range of legal issues, including civil litigation, criminal law and family law. Roth earned his law degree from Hofstra University School of Law.
Deanna D. Panico (Democrat, Republican, Conservative) earned her law degree from St.
Opinion: Defining America in a polarized nation
By Anna Giulia Polli
Former President Donald Trump’s undeniably memorable campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” sparked discussions about the notions of American greatness, patriotism and nationalism since its inception during his 2016 presidential campaign.
Both Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have made selling their own versions of patriotism a significant part of their campaigns for the upcoming presidential election.
Harris presents a flashy Americana image, featuring banners with the word “FREEDOM” in big bold letters at her rallies. She says she will carry out the American promise of freedom by framing her policies on bodily autonomy.
On the other hand, the patriotism Trump lauds is an idealization of a (perhaps imagined) past America and a call for
its return. In a time where partisan politics have polarized the concept of American pride, it is important to consider as Americans the connotations and weight we give to patriotism.
As many other Americans will likely relate to, my personal relationship with patriotism doesn’t feel as straightforward as Trump’s slogan. I admire the values that America strives for, and many of them are my own: equality, meritocracy, freedom, ambition, hard work and justice. I’m appreciative of the aspects of American society in which these values are put to practice.
Although we can debate the extent to which America truly fosters freedom, there’s no denying that as Americans, we experience degrees of religious freedom, freedom of the press and freedom to protest that shouldn’t be taken for granted. As a woman, for example,
even the right to access higher education is something I might not have in other parts of the world.
In addition, I simply love this country instinctively; I love the mountains that really do look purple as the sun sets, the winding snakes of cars and headlights on the Franklin D. Roosevelt East River Drive in Manhattan, the waves of people that stand for “The StarSpangled Banner” at a baseball game and the raucous laughter of the crowd as Johnny Cash sings “A Boy Named Sue.” It’s easy to love America’s culture and values, and to feel close to those living completely different lives in other parts of the nation through our shared nationality.
John’s University School of Law. She has been a practicing attorney at Bee Ready Fishbein Hatter & Donovan, LLP since 2012, focusing on employment law and municipal law. Panico represented her clients in state and federal courts.
Terence P. Murphy (Democrat, Republican, Conservative) has extensive experience in the legal field and public service. He attended New York Law School and built a career in legal practice. Murphy served as a District Court judge and handled cases across civil, criminal and family law.
Alfred C. Graf (Democrat, Republican, Conservative) graduated from the Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center and currently serves as a Suffolk County Family Court Judge.
Graf previously served as a member of the New York State Assembly, representing District 5 from 2011 to 2018.
Graf’s career has been shaped by his service in the U.S. military, and as a former Suffolk County Police
However, this love doesn’t equate with the type of patriotism that expects Americans to never critique society and blindly ignore the country’s flaws. This type of patriotism becomes
a resistance to change and evolution. Loving our country and being devoted to it shouldn’t mean glossing over its wrongs; it should mean working to make it truly representative of the values it is supposed to
JERRY WEINTRAUB/THE STATESMAN.
Campus opinions split as Trump, Harris battle in close election
By Amen Ruth Galinato and Sarah Chaudhry
This year’s presidential election is achingly close, remaining a complete toss up as Donald Trump, the Republican candidate and former president, leads Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate and vice president, by one point in the polls. The Statesman sent out an anonymous Google survey to Stony Brook University students of various majors, and conducted interviews with students, professors and members of campus political organizations to discuss their thoughts on this contentious race. One prominent theme was the representation and effectiveness of political parties in American politics.
When asked if candidates adequately represented their political parties, the consensus among students was split 50-50.
One survey participant stated that they felt neither Trump nor Harris adequately represented their political parties.
“I think they are both so extreme in their views that they don’t accurately represent liberals or conservatives,” a participant wrote.
Other participants expressed that they feel that Harris embodies the Democratic Party better than Trump does for the Republican Party.
“I think Trump is off the deep end of Republicans, but Harris is [the] perfect [representation of the Democratic Party],” a participant said.
Students expressed a more positive attitude about Harris’ candidacy than Trump’s.
Richard Vatawat, the president of the Stony Brook chapter of College Democrats, said that he believed Harris and her running
mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, better represent their respective party in comparison to Trump and his running mate, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance.
Likewise, Nisa Demiroglu, the president of the Stony Brook chapter of Bridge, a non-partisan politics club devoted to fostering civil dialogue, wrote to The Statesman in an email that she felt Harris represents her party well despite receiving criticism from more liberal voters.
“I think Harris represents the Democratic Party by advocating for progressive policies like climate action, healthcare reform and more social justice based policies. I think she has shown a diverse perspective as a woman of color and her experience in the legal field has definitely influenced her stance on certain issues,” she wrote. “There are some critics of hers who feel she doesn’t fully embody the progressive ideals of the party she represents.”
Demiroglu said that although she believed Trump’s general stances on issues were reflective of his party, his frank style of speaking has contributed to the deepening of the partisan divide.
“Trump seems to represent the Republican Party as his proposed policies and stances emphasize nationalism, deregulations and a strong stance on immigration. His approach on cutting taxes and boosting the economy is appealing to many individuals who identify as conservative or fiscally conservative, so he has a strong support system. However, with that being said, his rhetoric can sometimes be
polarizing, which may not necessarily align with those Republicans who tend to be more moderate in a sense,” she wrote.
One of the participants wrote that they dislike both candidates, as neither represent the overall policies of their respective political parties.
“Two parties can’t really accurately represent all Americans so they end up being kind of watered down. Both parties are more skewed to the right than the people who vote for them,” she wrote.
She also stated that she believes Trump is “narcissistic and has no values at all … he’d say or do anything to have power and doesn’t actually believe anything he stands behind. I don’t like that [Harris] relies on superficial things like being ‘brat,’ but I like how she’s patriotic even though she’s not on the extreme right of the spectrum.”
“He’s not good,” wrote another participant. “His vision of America is so vague that I can imagine those around him using that
to their advantage to project their own vision of America. I’d rather not envision an America with Project 2025.”
Another participant agreed that Project 2025 “feels too antithetical to the concept of the ‘American Dream.’”
Project 2025 is a 922-page book written by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative thinktank. It details overhauls of the executive branch and proposing radical policy changes regarding the economy, culture, education and healthcare. Some of its proposals include a federal abortion ban, implementing block-grants on federal healthcare programs, ending student loan forgiveness and eliminating the Department of Education which could significantly decrease funding for public schools,“Trump’s policies don’t sound too good,” agreed another participant. “Especially the tariffs part. Sounds baffling. Kamala’s whole appeal, for the most part, is that she’s being branded almost like a centrist. I have conflicting feelings about that.”
Continued on page 8
Racial and gender dynamics in 2024: Kamala Harris vs. Donald
By Jenna Zaza
In the 2024 presidential election season, a subtle yet powerful linguistic dynamic is shaping public discourse: Former President Donald Trump is consistently referred to by his last name while Vice President Kamala Harris is often called by her first, with it sometimes being intentionally mispronounced. This discrepancy in references reflects deep-seated gender and racial biases within society.
“It’s shaping what the public sphere is and who should have a voice and who shouldn’t. So when you use her first name, you’re being over familiar and making her seem ordinary,” Victoria Hesford, an associate professor in the Department of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Stony Brook University, said. “When you mispronounce it, it’s a sign of disrespect. It’s a foreground to show that she’s ‘foreign — she’s not like you and me.’”
This phenomenon isn’t uncommon, as female professionals are twice as likely to be called by their first name compared to their male counterparts according to a 2018 study. In the 2008 Democratic primaries, the study found that broadcast news anchors were more likely to refer to former President Barack Obama by
his surname than former Sen. Hillary Clinton. Her campaign leveraged her first name to soften her image and distinguish herself from the political history of her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Harris’ situation is different.
“Language is performative in the sense that it cannot just state something, but it can constitute something,” according to Amy Cook, a professor of English and the vice provost for Academic Affairs at the University. “When you have a name that offers an opportunity for mispronunciations, you are immediately ‘othering’ that person. You’re immediately suggesting that that person does not have a name that fits neatly into our culture and thus doesn’t belong.”
Stony Brook University political science Professor Eric Groenendyk also noted that mispronouncing Harris’ first name underscores Trump’s “American-ness” and implies that Harris is foreign-born — an accusation that also surfaced during Obama’s first presidential run when people questioned his birth certificate and challenged his right to serve as president of the United States.
Presidential candidates carefully craft their public personas through campaigning, shaping how they want to be perceived by voters. Trump blends his business reputation with his political stature so that when people use his last name, it reinforces his brand, Hesford explained. As for Harris, by leveraging her first name and emphasizing its correct pronunciation, the campaign attempts to create a personal connection between the candidate and potential voters.
“She’s encouraging [the use of her] first name, partly because she wants to seem approachable, warm and accessible. It would be a mistake for her to run away from her feminine qualities because of her Democratic base of support so she can’t come off as too tough or too anti-feminine. That won’t work either,” Leonie Huddy, a distinguished political science professor and chair of the department, said.
For Harris, her tightrope walk of balancing a thin line between masculine-associated traits like assertiveness and aggression and feminineassociated traits like warmth and concern for others are also compounded by her race.
“At the Democratic Convention, they brought her nieces onto the stage, and they were telling the audience, this is how you pronounce my aunt’s name. Within that context, the meaning of the performance is to generate a sense of Kamala Harris within her familial context. She’s an auntie,” Hesford said. “This [is] something that is not often said very explicitly — how we understand names kind of racially in American culture. So they are also addressing that.”
If Harris wins the election, she would be the country’s first female president and second president of color, challenging people’s presidential preconceptions of candidates who tend to be masculine and white.
“The election of Obama was a sign that the [U.S.] had not moved beyond racism … The Obama presidency reanimated lots of white resentment towards people of color,” Hesford said. “There had been a development in American political culture, where we can understand that there are diverse voices and experiences and needs that need to be heard, and I think now people are less sure that that’s the case.”
Trump
Presidential candidates Donald Trump (left) and Kamala Harris (right) positioned in front of the White House. In political survey provided by The Statesman, a recurrent theme found among the student body was the representation and effectiveness of political parties in American politics. ILLUSTRATED BY BRITTNEY DIETZ/THE STATESMAN.
Should pop stars weigh in on politics?
By Amen Ruth Galinato
Celebrities have become powerful players in the realm of politics; their ability to influence the public has made them pivotal figures in the election process.
According to a recent study from Harvard University, celebrities significantly foster civic engagement by using their platforms to boost voter participation at unprecedented levels.
Take Taylor Swift, whose single Instagram story posted in 2018 promoting voter registration led to 250,000 newly registered voters in just three days, or how Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of former president Barack Obama in the 2008 election contributed an estimated one million votes to his win, according to economists.
Amidst the 2024 election, Republican candidate and former president Donald Trump posted AI-generated photos of Swift falsely endorsing him. The singer then took to Instagram to not only denounce the fake claim but passionately endorse Democratic presidential candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris, days after the presidential debate.
Swift posed with her cat in the photo and signed the post, “Taylor Swift, Childless Cat Lady,” directly referring back to Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance’s comments about “childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives.”
The Swiftie vote has been one that presidential candidates have strived to get. Though the singer’s not known to get deeply involved in politics, in recent years Swift has become more vocal about her stances. In 2018, she made her first political endorsement.
“I always have and always will cast my vote based on which candidate will protect and fight for the human rights I believe we all deserve in this country. I believe in the fight for LGBTQ rights, and that any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender is WRONG. I believe that the systemic racism we still see in this country towards people of color is terrifying, sickening and prevalent,” she said.
Award-winning rapper Megan
Thee Stallion also proudly showed her
support for Harris when the star headlined her campaign rally in Atlanta, G.A. Shortly after her performance, Stallion endured online scrutiny for her endorsement.
She responded to the criticism during a break at her Lollapalooza set in Chicago, I.L.
“They was fake mad that I was popping it for Kamala. I don’t think they heard what she said,” Megan said. “Kamala said she wants a ceasefire. Kamala said she supports women’s rights. Kamala said y’all tired of those high ... gas prices. Kamala said, ‘I’m for the people.’”
In a post on Truth Social, Trump condemned Harris for her use of celebrities in her campaign two days after the campaign rally event in Atlanta.
“Crazy Kamala Harris, voted the WORST Vice President in American history, needed a concert to bring people into the Atlanta arena, and they started leaving 5 minutes into her speech. I don’t need concerts or entertainers, I just have to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”
Music icon Beyoncé also expressed support for Harris when she granted her permission to use her hit song “Freedom” (feat. Kendrick Lamar) as Harris’ official campaign song. This choice followed her alleged threat to send a cease-and-desist letter to Trump, who used the song in a now-deleted social media post about his campaign.
Charli xcx summed up her support for Harris in her viral three-word post on X , “kamala IS brat,” a reference to her most recent album, “BRAT.” Not long after, the official Kamala HQ account on X changed their profile picture to match the arial font and lime green background color of xcx’s album.
Ashley Spillane, the author of the Harvard study mentioned above, expressed the deep mistrust within traditional political sources that has led Generation Z to look to celebrities for guidance in an interview with ABC News.
“Right now, young voters have relatively low levels of trust in a lot of leaders and institutions, including traditional news media — but celebrities are often a rare exception,” she said.
Celebrity political endorsements are more than a century-old campaign tactic. However, the interconnectivity of social media has amplified the intensity of parasocial relationships more than ever before, with famous public figures now having the power to impact politics at the push of a button.
As a result, online users have progressively become more perceptive of the way celebrities approach political issues, either criticizing the nature of their public stances or their silence as a statement in and of itself.
Some celebrities’ lack of acknowledgment of the ongoing Israeli-Hamas conflict has led many users to block celebrities on platforms, including Swift, Zendaya and members of the Kardashian family. X user @literarycore posted a tweet in May about the movement, calling it #blockout2024. The post received three million views and over 46,000 likes.
After pop star Chappell Roan, a strong champion of LGBTQ+ rights, expressed in an interview with The Guardian that she felt it unnecessary to endorse a candidate for the upcoming presidential election, she was met with a wave of beratement.
“I have so many issues with our government in every way,” Roan said. “There are so many things that I would want to change. So I don’t feel pressured to endorse someone. There’s problems on both sides. I encourage people to use your critical thinking skills, use your vote – vote small, vote for what’s going on in your city.”
Commenters clung to a small part of her quote: “There’s problems on both sides.” They criticized the star for implying there were equal amounts of issues with both political parties, given the drastic differences in the Democratic party’s and Republican party’s positions on the LGBTQ+ community.
This resulted in Roan clarifying her comments in two TikToks. In the first post, she calmly repeated her sentiments from the interview with the Guardian, urging people “to use critical thinking skills” and ensuring fans she is not voting for Trump. In the second
post, an upset Roan elaborated on her reasons for not endorsing Harris.
In the video, Roan discussed her disagreement with the Democratic Party’s handling of both the ongoing Israel-Hamas war and transgender policies, of which she did not specify she disapproved.
“Obviously, f*** the policies of the right, but also f*** some of the policies on the left,” Roan said. “That’s why I can’t endorse. That’s why I can’t, like, put my entire name [and] my entire project behind one.”
Though the most notable example to do so, Roan isn’t the only left-leaning celebrity who has publicly voiced her intentional lack of an endorsement. Cardi B withdrew her endorsement for President Joe Biden in the 2024 presidential election months before he dropped out of the race, despite previously endorsing him in the 2020 presidential election.
In an interview with Rolling Stone, the politically outspoken rapper expressed regret over supporting Biden’s administration, discussing the United States’ funding of wars as a major source of frustration.
“[America] don’t pay for endless wars for countries that have been going through s*** for a very long time,” Cardi said. “There’s countries [where] kids are getting killed every single day, but because the [U.S.] won’t benefit from that country, they won’t help. I don’t like that America has this superhero cape on. We never did things to be superheroes. We did things for our own convenience.”
When celebrities decide to endorse— or consciously refrain from endorsing—a candidate, they wield a unique influence that can sway public opinion and voter turnout. In today’s digital landscape, the pressure on public figures to comment on political matters has intensified, complicating the line between advocacy and personal beliefs. As audiences demand quick, clear stances on complex issues, nuanced political discussions become harder to sustain in the online spotlight.
A display of public figures such as (from left to right) Charli xcx, Cardi B, Beyoncé, Megan Thee Stallion and Chappell Roan depicted alongside political commentary and involvement in the 2024 presidential election. Online pressure has made the realm of politics even more tricky for famous figures to navigate. ILLUSTRATED BY JERRY WEINTRAUB/THE STATESMAN.
Opinion: Republicans’ Harris endorsements spark debate on GOP’s shifting moral compass
By Kenneth Gao
Former President and Republican candidate Donald Trump has been a part of the national political discourse for nearly a decade, stemming from his fateful run as the 45th President of the United States after securing the Republican Party (GOP) nomination in 2016. With Trump’s boisterous persona and populist policy agenda, he has significantly redefined electoral politics and the Republican Party as a whole.
The GOP itself has been redefined as “The Party of Trump,” with its key positions kept in lockstep with his candidacy. In this process, Bush-era and moderate Republicans have been pushed to the furthest edges of the GOP’s messaging. With Trump on the ballot for this year’s election, they are fighting their way back into the core of the Republican Party.
In a turn of events, current and former members of the GOP have come out in droves to endorse Democratic nominee and sitting Vice President Kamala Harris. A coalition of 100 Republicans has questioned Trump’s capabilities as a leader of the U.S. and condemned the actions of Jan. 6, 2021, which was a direct result of the former president’s hateful rhetoric following the 2020 presidential election.
On The Republican Party
I have lost faith in the GOP’s ability to claim that switching allegiances is integrity. Following the events of Jan. 6, members of Congress failed to deliver a concise message about the candidate that they exalted to the highest office. In fact, Senate Republicans acquitted him on charges of incitement following the riot. To add insult to injury, former party leader Liz Cheney was ousted from her position after she was one of a handful of GOP representatives to publicly
condemn Trump for his actions regarding the 2020 election.
Although the party failed to deliver a concrete message, the GOP made their intentions clear with how they treated their most vocal members: they would stick by Trump’s side.
Four years later, a majority of the party remains in cahoots with a man who has been found guilty in both civil and criminal courts of fraud, sexual abuse and paying hush money to protect his image. Are these the people we are supposed to believe suddenly trust in the rule of law? I would hesitate to say yes.
To the credit of many Republicans who have co-signed the pledge for Harris, many have raised moral objections to Trump in the past. This includes former Trump cabinet members such as Olivia Troye and Liz Cheney. Despite November’s outcome, the GOP will be given a choice of which side of the coin they choose: to completely purge Trump from party politics or to embrace him for another four years. Either option presents implications for how we address the wrongdoings in the name of their own preservation. Either we accept a party that has been ultimately unaccountable for its embrace of his rhetoric or we let it fester for another presidential term.
About Dick Cheney’s Endorsement for Harris
One of the most high-profile endorsements to have come out of the push for Harris is that of Dick Cheney, who was the vice president to former President George W. Bush. Briefly coming out of retirement, Dick Cheney crossed party lines to endorse Harris, citing the existential threat that Trump posed to the integrity of the nation.
“As citizens, we each have a duty to put the country above partisanship to defend our Constitution,” Dick Cheney said. Dick Cheney was one of the key figures responsible for aggressively and violently expanding the executive branch’s authority to assault the civil rights of citizens abroad and overseas. In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, Dick Cheney was a key figure in developing the Central Intelligence Agency’s “enhanced interrogation” program, which saw the inhumane physical and mental abuse of prisoners in the agency’s black sites around the globe. He and his co-conspirators openly lied to the American public about Iraq’s nonexistent arsenal of weapons of mass destruction to corral public support for an endless war. Furthermore, Dick Cheney abetted a global surveillance state operating out of the National Security Association under the pretense of monitoring for domestic terrorism.
Republicans like Dick Cheney are the old guards that claim to embody the integrity of a pre-2016 Republican Party. These are the war profiteers that comprise a significant chunk of the ex-Republicans who have endorsed Harris. Yes, Trump’s capacity for lies has created substantial harm to both our national discourse and our capacity to peaceably transfer power. However, when the equally corrupt start pointing fingers at what constitutes an unacceptable lie, it’s not a condemnation of Trump — it’s an attempt at veiling their past.
Harris openly flaunted the endorsements of Dick and Liz Cheney during last month’s debate, proudly exclaiming his name to a watchful audience of 67 million viewers. Perhaps eager to capture the crowd of moderate Republicans who might have voted for Bush in
2000, Harris wore the underpinnings of a war criminal on her lapel.
In a symposium with the likes of Dick Cheney, Harris failed to mention the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. During the debate, Harris claimed that “there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty … in any war zone around the world.” Harris also tip-toed around discussing the billions in military aid Biden’s Department of Defense sent to Israel, all the while paying lip service to the “selfdetermination” of Palestinians. This is not the sound of conscience; it’s the sound of one hand washing another.
Trump has had his hands on the pulse of the GOP for the past decade, with every whim of the party capitulating to the needs of his campaign. As a result, the country’s rhetoric has profoundly and indelibly changed, pushing out the messaging of a pre-Trump America. There is reason to fear the continued effects of another Trump term on the future of the GOP. However, I also fear a GOP that can claim moral sanctity by supporting Harris: there is such a thing as too little, too late.
The promise that is consecrated in this push for Harris is not one for greater principles. It’s not the call for decency that this body of Republicans has espoused. Any desire to claim “decency” died on the steps of the Capitol years ago on Jan. 6. This is the final hurrah of a party that wants to do evil with a smile and a handshake. This endorsement is a very minute apology, a slight backstep from the Party of Trump. Regardless of the results of November’s election, I remain skeptical of the GOP and what it can tolerate in the name of power.
I do not accept that apology, and neither should you.
PPGA Expands Access to Plan B on Campus
By Maggie Gawor
Planned Parenthood Generation Action (PPGA) is one of many organizations on Stony Brook University’s campus advocating for sexual and reproductive health, rights and justice for all people.
PPGA offers a supportive environment for students seeking information on things like Planned Parenthood, contraceptives and Plan B to access these resources.
Plan B is a morning-after emergency contraception that helps prevent pregnancy before it starts when taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex.
Ayushi Pandya, the president of PPGA and a junior majoring in biochemistry, shared the goal and focus that PPGA has for the Stony Brook community.
“Our main focus is spreading awareness about reproductive rights and reproductive health, as well as giving the student body the information they need about their own reproductive and sexual health in order to make informed decisions about their body,” she said.
Plan B is also offered and given out for free at every PPGA general board meeting and all tabling events.
“On top of spreading information, we want to play another active role in activism,” Pandya said. “Last semester, we set up a few fundraisers for Palestine for menstrual hygiene access, and we hope to do something like that again.”
PPGA fundraised almost $2,000 during the spring semester with various student organizations such as SB4Palestine, The Black Student Union and Stony Brook Peace Action.
Reproductive rights are among the most discussed topics in the 2024 presidential election, since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade (1973) in 2022, ending the constitutional right to abortion access.
Since that decision took place, 13 states have ceased nearly all abortion services and four states have enacted six-week bans.
Anika Drees, the social media manager for PPGA and a junior majoring in political science, said that the club’s work “would drastically change if [former president Donald] Trump were to be elected.”
“He could follow what he’s been saying lately on the campaign trail, where he gives the power back to the states to decide. In that case, we would still be able to function as a club and work on keeping access in the state of New York open,” Drees said. “On the other hand, if he goes along with what Project 2025 has laid out, Planned Parenthood may be at risk as a whole. Meaning, even just simple access to healthcare — which is much of what Planned Parenthood offers — is at risk.”
PPGA has been doing their best to encourage students to get out and vote for the issues that matter the most to them.
“With the election near, we’ve really just changed a couple of our posts and one of our GBMs,” Drees said. “We obviously want to urge people to get out and vote, but we also want to keep our core basis of having healthcare available to all. We have been posting and will post more about voting resources and how to vote on campus or by mail.”
This semester PPGA has hosted several events, including a scavenger hunt dedicated to educating students on female reproductive anatomy, “Stained Glass with PPGA,” and “Flower to Empower” — events where students created flower crowns and debunked virginity myths.
“I joined because I found it so interesting, and women’s healthcare is so overlooked, especially reproductive healthcare,” Pandya said. “I wanted to be a part of educating other students and people.”
PPGA focuses on increasing access to contraception and Plan B on campus whenever possible. Currently, the club provides Julie — a morning-after pill that functions similarly to the generic Plan B brand.
“Right now, our big focus is getting Plan B into vending machines. We’re currently
Defining America:
Continued from page 2 stand for. To do otherwise would be to embody nationalism more than patriotism.
According to CNN’s Fuzz Hogan, nationalism is “the concept that some kind of identity matters more than philosophy.” In the United States, nationalism is prevalent in the “America First” policies that Trump proposed during his presidency, with Trump even declaring himself a nationalist during a rally in 2018.
This rhetoric of American supremacy that argues that America can do no wrong and resists change has recently become a large part of what the Republican Party and far-right politicians in the U.S. base their platform on. This can make it hard for those who do not align themselves with conservative ideals to reconcile a love for America with personal politics.
The tension between nationalism and patriotism becomes particularly sharp given the nation’s diversity and the
stuck with actually getting the vending machines because we have to go through administration to do so,” Lisa Wen, the vice president of PPGA and a junior majoring in psychology, said. “Even though it’s come to a bit of a pause, we’re still not giving up with Plan B access.”
The Student Health Services Pharmacy offers Plan B for a cost of $10, between Monday and Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Center for Prevention and Outreach is another location that offers Plan B, free of cost, in the Stony Brook Union between Monday and Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
“We’ve received a bunch of free Plan B [pills] that we pass out to students. Sometimes we get [direct messages] from students who may need them in an emergency because the ones on campus aren’t accessible 24/7,” Wen said. “Students deserve an option that is
available at all times.”
In this context of heightened awareness and urgency surrounding reproductive rights, students are motivated to engage with PPGA’s initiatives.
“I’ve learned about so many different activists who have fought for women’s bodily rights and just for equality in general. Bringing awareness to those around us and building a new community is what having a club is all about; PPGA does a fantastic job at that,” Ahtesamul “Tes” Chowdhury, a regular attendee at the PPGA events and junior majoring in biology, said.
Pandya emphasized the fulfillment that comes from witnessing the organization’s impact on students.
“Being able to actually see the impact is one of the most fulfilling things about this, knowing that we’re letting students make the best decisions for their body regarding sex and reproduction,” Pandya said.
historical marginalization of minorities as it brings up confronting America’s dark past and the inequalities that seep into our present.
A prime example of this in recent history is the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection that was spurred on by extreme nationalism.
In his guest opinion piece for the New York Times, author Esau McCaulley discussed his grandfather’s experience with the division between nationalism and patriotism. He was an African American veteran who first experienced integrated life in the military, with memories of his service in the ‘60s both held fondly and soured by racism.
Though he initially committed to three years with the military out of financial need, he stayed for longer — “I guess I loved America more than I thought.”
His pride in having served his country, especially fighting with his superior officer to address the Black soldiers in the unit with equal respect as the white soldiers exemplifies
American patriotism. However, he still recalls with bitterness the injustices he faced, saddened that he was never able to become a fireman despite his qualifications because of racism.
In a Time Magazine article, writer Teri Michele Youmans ponders her relationships with patriotism and nationalism in a time when American politics are deeply polarized. As she was growing up, nationalism and patriotism meant loving her country and striving to see the best in America. Now, however, she feels taken aback by the likes of nationalism that seemed to fuel the Jan. 6 insurrection.
By 2016, when Trump became President, it was as though the Republican party had absconded with patriotism completely, and a large part of Christianity to boot,” she wrote.
“By the time Jan. 6 happened, I figured the idea of patriotism could never, ever again mean what it used to. Instead of a sense
of shared pride, it seethed with anger and coveted control.”
In the political landscape we’re living in, there is no denying that many experience tension between feeling love for the country and its dream while still being conscious of the flaws that pervade the nation.
Simon & Garfunkel’s song “America” captures the duality of patriotism and doubts about America’s true adherence to its values. In this song, the narrator travels across the heartland of the U.S. in hopes of finding if the American ideals — freedom, meritocracy, equality — he dreams of truly exist.
This sentiment is timeless. No matter where in time we are, the outcome of the 2024 presidential election and how nuanced our perceptions of nationalism and patriotism may get, all of us are looking desperately for these values we share, hoping that they’re real. But we don’t have to just sit there and hope; we can be a part of executing them into reality.
Planned Parenthood Generation Action set up for the event “Bodies, Rights and Frights” that they held on Oct. 17. From left to right: Jennifer Weah, Lydia Schnell, Fiorela Garcia, Ayushi Pandya, Lijun (Lisa) Wen and Alyssa Cornell. Missing from the photo are: Rebecca Xie, Jazhara (Jazz) Applewhite and Anika Drees. PHOTO COURTESY OF PPGA.
Generation Z casting their ballot
By Sarah Chaudhry
The presidential election will welcome more than 40 million members of Generation Z to vote for the first time. Democrats and Republicans alike have marketed their campaigns to appeal to all kinds of voters but especially toward this generation.
Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign grew their social media presence, gaining support from celebrities like Taylor Swift and Charli xcx, the latter affiliating Harris with #bratsummer, boosting her campaign success. Meanwhile, republican presidential candidate and former president Donald Trump was featured in viral videos of influencers like Logan Paul, a YouTube star, using his platform to increase support, and Elon Musk.
Young Americans play an integral role in determining the course of the upcoming election as the most powerful voter demographic. They are opinionated, have ample opportunities to be informed through social media and can influence others on a larger scale than previous generations and elections, as exemplified on TikTok. And yet, young people are also the demographic with the lowest voter turnout and registration rates.
However, data from the 2020 election showed that young people turnout is increased, especially in key swing states, ultimately resulting in Biden winning the election. Since then, young voters have been perceived as a threat to members of the Republican party, who wanted to increase the voting age.
Stanley Feldman is a professor in Stony Brook University’s Department of Political Science with expertise in voting behavior and political psychology.
“One of the major reasons why young people don’t vote is because it takes a long time for them to become eligible to vote,” he said. “They may not feel stable enough to vote when they’re young, as they’re more focused on … moving around. Once they’re comfortable [enough], they tend to get involved in politics.”
According to U.S. News and World Report, older Americans “tend to move around less and have more set schedules” and thus have more incentive to vote for issues such as tax and healthcare policies.
Feldman mentioned that the amount of young people willing to cast a vote depends on how impactful the election and candidates are to them.
“This election depends on how successful the presidential candidates are in appealing to the youth,” he said. “It’s hard to say what matters the most to get voter turnout … celebrity endorsements and social media are one thing, but the extent to which young people will vote depends on the bigger stake: candidate attractiveness.”
Feldman brought up how Harris has been emphasizing the importance of protecting abortion and reproductive rights to appeal to young women.
“Margins as small as 10-15k votes in swing states have determined who won … this is not a lot of people,” Feldman said, emphasizing the political power of young voters in swing states.
“With a significant increase in young people’s turnout and the majority of them tend to vote Democratic, they can change the outcome of the election. Very small margins can make all the difference in the government for the next two to four years.”
Andrew Engelhardt is a professor in Stony Brook’s Department of Political Science who specializes in public opinion and polling behavior.
“Young voters can be consequential, but it can depend on what election we’re looking at and where. Will young voters shape the outcome of the presidential race in New York? No. In Michigan, Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania? Perhaps,” he wrote in an email interview.
Engelhardt added, “The contest is simply much closer in those state[s], so whether or not younger voters turn out and, if they turn out, who they decide to vote for can matter given then likely narrow margins
these states will have. But coming back to [New York], younger voters can matter in down-ballot races with narrower margins.”
At the same time, young people may not be as informed on politics compared to older people. In addition to the presidential election, the House of Representatives and Senate elections are also on the ballot.
“If you’re any person in this country and you care how the election comes out, you should vote. The outcome of the election determines who’s president for the next four years, the House of Representatives makeup, Supreme Court judges, what bills can be passed, the Senate … everything can change with a little voting power,” Feldman wrote.
He explained each branch of government impacts the other and voting for a president is only half the work if voters ignore the other two branches of government. It can be difficult for presidents to enact the policies they promised voters when the House or Senate majorities are of the opposing political party.
“Voting’s strength is that it’s largely the one time of year we pay attention to what the result is and, fundamentally, it determines who is in office. So, it’s the strongest tool insofar as we think that who is in office matters, and evidence suggests it does,” Professor Engelhardt said.
He added, “There are big differences in the policy programs between congressional Democrats and Republicans … So voting is a strength in that it helps determine who is in office, but a weakness because a vote does not convey support for everything that person might do.”
The Statesman wanted to see where young voters on campus stand and their thoughts on politics so a campus-wide Google form survey was sent out. Seven students responded to the survey and gave their input.
Out of all the responses, six students shared that voting is important to them and that the upcoming election
will be their first time voting. When asked why they are voting, the consensus is that they care deeply about the country’s political scene. One participant referenced several issues that were of importance to her.
“I will vote because the election will have significant effects on issues like abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, funding for public schools, taxes, and lots of other issues that affect me and other Americans. There’s no point in having a democracy if people don’t vote, we have this right and we should use it,” she wrote.
She said she is voting because she cares about “a woman’s right to choose, the right to be queer and to be queer in public, higher taxes for the rich.”
Another participant wrote that she is voting to contribute to the country’s political affairs. She disclosed that she is voting based on her political beliefs, citing climate change, the poverty crisis and abortion.
The survey also inquired about students’ feelings on the voting age and as well as the Republicans’ consideration of raising the voting age. The following responses were collected, with the general consensus being that the voting age should remain at 18.
“If people can enlist in the military after high school, those same people should have the right to participate in a democracy,” one participant wrote.
“18 feels like a good age for when people start feeling comfortably politically aware,” another participant wrote.
The survey provided valuable evidence that young voters at Stony Brook are determined to make use of their right to vote and contribute to the nation’s political scene by supporting what they believe in. Both Feldman and Engelhardt recognize the ability of young people to shift the course of the upcoming election and future elections to come.
“Everything makes a big difference on who governs,” he said. “However, you can’t complain about the outcome if you don’t vote.”
A collage of public figures displayed on a background of voting stickers. ILLUSTRATED BY IRENE YIMMONGKOL/THE STATESMAN.
Professors Discuss Key Differences in the 2024 Election
By Viyang Hao
The Statesman sat down with two Stony Brook University professors from the Department of Political Science to help contextualize whether the United States 2024 presidential election differs from previous elections.
The following conversations have been edited for length and clarity.
Andrew Engelhardt is an assistant professor. His research dives into how the United States handles issues of inclusion and inequality, how people form and change their opinions about different racial populations and how these views affect their political beliefs. He teaches POL 317 (American Election Campaigns) and POL 353 (Contemporary Race Relations in American Politics).
The Statesman: Is race a contentious issue this election year?
Engelhardt: Race is the most contentious issue across U.S. history, and there’s a lot of social science to back this up.
to now with Vice President Harris?
Engelhardt: With 2008 Democrats, white folks on average, were a bit more positive in their views of Black Americans and other people of color than white Republicans.
White Democrats today have much more positive views of Black Americans, Latino Americans and Asian Americans than they did in 2008.
The Statesman: You mentioned a little about the news; how does coverage of race or racial issues impact us going into an election year?
Lines between parties today are grounded in race. Between the 1930s and the 1960s, especially after 1964, the Democratic Party was the party for civil rights. We can think about civil rights for Black Americans anwd then eventually for Asian, Latino and Native Americans. As a consequence of that, with former U.S. president Lyndon B. Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, you have a lot of prejudiced white folks abandoning the Democratic Party and moving into the Republican Party.
The 1960s might seem like a long time ago, but just think about the candidates running: Vice President of the United States and Democratic presidential nominee, who is Jamaican-Indian-American, and former president Donald Trump, an old white guy. Their characteristics are emblematic of the broader party coalitions.
The Statesman: How have racial attitudes changed over time from the 2008 Presidential Election with then-President Barack Obama
Regarding Harris’s campaign, one participant stated that she “occasionally feels [that it is] too much of a continuation of [President Joe] Biden, especially [regarding] the aspects that led to him being unpopular by the general public.”
One participant brought up a point she believed eliminating political parties altogether.
“We should have never developed political parties. George Washington advised against them, and he was right. The parties cause too much divide. Really, parties should be working together to contribute different points of view. This is not what is happening, and it has caused not only a
Even if Generation Z doesn’t affect this year’s election outcome, it is whether or not you participate in this election has long-term consequences.
Next, The Statesman spoke to Helmut Norpoth, an emeritus professor whose research focuses on electoral behavior, public opinion, wartime elections, electoral realignment and electoral forecasting. The Statesman asked about his electoral forecasting model. Prior to retirement, he used to teach POL 317 (American Election Campaigns).
Engelhardt: The media can serve as an agenda-setting function.
One of the ways that the media affects whether or how race matters in a campaign is just literally introducing it as a topic for us to think about.
The media can raise the salience by talking about a candidate who has a certain racial background by talking about an issue that is explicitly or implicitly connected with race.
For example, if we talk about immigration, we can all close our eyes and probably imagine somebody that looks like they’re from a Latin American country. The reason that’s the case is because the media coverage of immigration as an issue since the early 2000s has always paired it with somebody from Latin America. By making the topic of race at the top of our minds, it makes it more likely for voters to use race as a decision-making factor. It’s not that the media is decisive, but it can be influential.
The Statesman: Do you see people from Generation Z who attend Stony Brook University, playing an impact on the election?
Engelhardt: It depends on where people are living. For a generation to matter, you’re going to have to have a lot of people show up to vote and the group also has to be relatively large. Once you turn out to vote the first time, you’re more likely to do it a second time and so forth; it’s like habit farming.
divide in the government, but a divide in the American people,” they said.
Andrew Engelhardt is an assistant professor in Stony Brook’s Department of Political Science.
“If by partisan politics you mean sharpening differences between Democratic and Republican politicians and other elites, or partisan polarization, it has fundamentally shaped voter attitudes for all Americans. We are more likely today to care about whether we are Democrats or Republicans compared to 20 years ago,” Engelhardt wrote.
Engelhardt explained that this forced partisan view of political parties skews the
The Statesman: Can you explain what your forecasting model, The Primary Model, is about?
Norpoth: I was always fascinated by the New Hampshire primary. I always tell my students that nobody has been elected president who did not win the New Hampshire primary. Well, it was true until it wasn’t anymore with former U.S. president Bill Clinton in 1992 and [Barack] Obama in 2008.
When I made my forecast, U.S. President Joe Biden was the candidate. You have Biden having two things going for him: he was a firstterm president and there were no challenges in the primary, especially in New Hampshire and South Carolina, meaning he’s favored to win against former president Donald Trump, according to my model. Compared to Trump, Biden was stronger in their party’s respective primaries, but both did pretty well, so my prediction came to the conclusion that Biden had a 75% chance of winning the election.
Of course, Biden decided to throw in the towel, and Harris became the anointed nominee without undergoing the primary so we don’t know how she would’ve done. The question was “What do I do?” I can say, “Sorry, this year I have to take a pass” because this is so unusual. It’s a tricky situation to be in when you’re in this business to make a forecast and then something like this happens.
The Statesman: What other limitations may your model face? For example, young people voting and polarization within the Electoral College?
Compared to most other primaries, it has a predictive factor that is second to none. So, I built this model, built it after the 1992 Presidential Election and tested it for the first time ever in the 1996 election.
Something else that I had noticed in tracking elections over time is that people know it by the rule that the president running after one term, usually gets re-elected. When the party has been in power for two terms, the candidate of the party in power usually doesn’t win. So, what I did was put these two things together.
The Statesman: Your model predicts that Harris is going to win with a 75% chance. How did your model come to that conclusion?
Norpoth: It’s a tricky situation because Kamala Harris wasn’t part of the Democratic parties.
political representation on a state level and thus influences the electoral college.
Regarding how Trump and Harris represent their respective parties, he said “their planned policy agendas are typical for each party.”
Engelhardt added that third parties “have effectively no influence in national politics except for drawing votes away from the two major parties.”
He also explained that third parties in a two-party system elicit both benefits and drawbacks.
“They can affect election outcomes, but not by encouraging the parties to adopt new policy positions or change how they govern,”
Norpoth: With young people, you never know. Ultimately, it’s something you have to see what happens. In regards to polarization within both parties, there isn’t that much competition.
Let’s say the prediction comes true and Trump loses. I would be looking very closely at the votes of people who had favored [Nikki] Haley or somebody else in the primaries and how they ended up voting.
The Statesman: Your model correctly predicted the winner of the presidential election since 1912 25 out of 28 times. Of the three, which one surprised you most?
Norpoth: I was so sure about 2020. My model was 91% certain Trump would win. There was no way that I could see it not come true. Without COVID-19, not much could have changed the outcome of the election.
Engelhardt wrote. “but if folks really want to change what the Democratic or Republican parties do, the best way to do that is to work within the party.”
He also acknowledged that third parties offer political value: “Third parties could matter more at local levels, but then this may be less about the party and more about a politician having local ties that help them overcome the tendency for people to vote for whomever has a D or an R next to their name on a ballot.”
Most Stony Brook University students said they hope that American politics will soon shift to reflect policies and candidates that represents the American people.
A headshot of Andrew Engelhardt, an assistant professor of political science. His research dives into inclusion and inequality and how people form their opinions. VIYANG HAO/THE STATESMAN.
A headshot of Helmut Norpoth, an emeritus professor. His research focuses on electoral behavior, public opinion, wartime elections, electoral realignment and electoral forecasting. VIYANG HAO/THE STATESMAN.
Opinion: Immigration is a pillar of America, not a threat
By Sonia Kinyua
As the presidential election approaches, immigration continues to be a contentious issue in political discourse. Republicans have continuously attacked Democratic immigration policies throughout the year. According to United States Customs and Border Protection, there have been over 8.6 million encounters at the U.S.-Mexico Border since 2021. Republicans say that these immigrants are a threat to U.Sborn citizens’ employment opportunities, contribute to high crime rates and increase in illicit drug importation. Furthermore, earlier this year, former President Donald Trump suggested that Democrats are registering illegal immigrants to vote.
However, this racist rhetoric orchestrated by the Republican Party has negatively affected migrants who have legally entered the country. During the presidential debate on Sept. 10, Trump said, “They’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there, and this is what’s happening in our country, and it’s a shame.”
In Springfield, Ohio, many Haitian migrants have felt endangered and uneasy due to the influx of threats to their lives as a consequence of Trump’s comments. Despite rumors being debunked, the damage has been done. At least 33 bomb threats were made to various buildings, ultimately sparking fear in the Haitian community. Families are scared to their send children to school or attend church, fearing that someone will act with ill intent.
This influx of misinformation has created a division among American citizens. By demonizing immigration, we create an environment that no longer welcomes migrants from other countries, instead pushing them away. This environment is even more harmful to migrants with legal immigration status as it brings misguided hatred toward fellow Americans. But how did America, a country that was discovered by immigrants, develop animosity toward immigrants in our modern age? And how does immigration play a part in American politics?
Historically, the U.S. has been defined by its diversity. From its very founding, America has been seen as a “cultural tapestry” — a place where people from different corners of the globe could come build new lives under the prospects of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Immigration has been the cornerstone of American society, fueling innovation, economic growth and cultural enrichment across the nation. From Irish and Italian immigrants in the early 20th century to the waves of Asian, Latin American and Middle Eastern migrants in recent decades, each generation of immigrants has played a vital role in shaping the nation.
Yet, today’s narrative has shifted. Many of the same voices that once celebrated America’s diversity now demonize those seeking refuge or opportunity in the U.S. The rise of antiimmigrant rhetoric, often fueled by political agendas, has redefined immigration in the public eye as a problem rather than a strength. This shift is not just about policy — it reflects a growing cultural divide. The challenges
surrounding immigration are not new, but they have been complicated by political polarization, economic anxieties and fears over national security.
As communities grapple with these issues, they often look toward elected officials for guidance. Unfortunately in many cases, including our most recent primary election period, political leaders have capitalized on fear and xenophobia to gain favor within their party. However, this harmful distortion alters the economic and social contributions immigrants make, sowing division within communities.
Trump has been consistent in his push for a wall at the U.S.Mexico Border in the hopes of keeping illegal immigrants from entering the nation. This idea has hindered our alliance with Mexico and our treatment of the immigrants that are here. Rather than focusing on building walls — literal or metaphorical — America must confront the underlying reasons as to why so many are drawn to its borders. Many immigrants come seeking better opportunities, fleeing violence or hoping for a safer, more stable life. It’s crucial to understand that immigrants are not outsiders; they are individuals seeking to contribute to a society that, historically, has benefited greatly from their presence.
The Houston teenager was murdered by two undocumented immigrants and left in a Houston creek. Nungaray blasted Vice President Kamala Harris at the rally and blamed her for the death of her child, saying, “[My daughter] was just being a child, and due to the Biden-Harris policies we have, is why she is not here anymore.”
The economic productivity that immigrants commit to highlights a positive impact on the country. Immigrants make up a significant portion of the workforce, filling crucial roles in a range of industries. In 2022, immigrants made up 18.1% of the workforce, a sizable share that is continually growing. And because immigrants are more likely to be of working age, they help fill crucial gaps in the workforce. As the U.S. economy has grappled with labor shortages that were further exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, newly arrived immigrants have filled jobs in the construction, educational and health service industries, restoring supply chains and thus helping to avert a mass economic crisis. Simply put, the U.S. cannot expand its workforce without permitting immigration, as eradicating it would cause a major economic decline.
Another major misconception regarding immigrants is that they are to blame for the rising crime rates. Crime has been a major topic with the influx of illegal drugs and the current fentanyl epidemic. The major question is: who is to blame for this influx of crime in America?
At a Trump rally on Oct. 26 in Austin, Texas, Trump brought on stage Alexis Nungaray, the mother of Jocelyn Nungaray.
There is no excuse for the heinous acts done to this child. However, Trump’s utilization of this tragedy to push a political agenda and spread misinformation about immigrants furthers this negative perception about immigration.
Regarding the fentanyl epidemic, close to 90% of the illicit drug is seized at official border crossings. Nearly all of that is smuggled by those legally able to cross the border and more than half of those individuals are U.S. citizens, not immigrants. Furthermore, in September 2024, a study by the National Institute of Justice found that undocumented immigrants are arrested at less than half the rate of native-born U.S. citizens for violent and drug crimes, as well as a quarter the rate of native-born citizens for property crimes.
By perpetuating the myth that immigrants, particularly undocumented individuals, are responsible for the nation’s crime problems, politicians and media outlets create an atmosphere of fear and hostility. This leads to a cascade of negative consequences for immigrants, even those who are legally residing in the country in vulnerable circumstances. In communities across the country, families who have legally entered the U.S. or are working toward legal status find themselves being harassed and stigmatized based on false assumptions about their involvement in
crime. This undermines social cohesion and makes it harder for immigrants to integrate, contribute and thrive in the very society they came to be a part of.
Moreover, one of the most dangerous misconceptions surrounding immigration is the idea that undocumented migrants are voting in U.S. elections. This case has been repeatedly pushed by political figures, including Trump, despite the lack of evidence to support it. In reality, illegal immigrants are barred from voting in federal elections under U.S. law. Only U.S. citizens can cast ballots in national elections, and voter identification and registration processes are specifically designed to prevent non-citizens from participating.
Furthermore, states with strict voter identification requirements and safeguards make it difficult, if not impossible, for undocumented individuals to vote. The spread of baseless rumors stroke mistrust and highlight the ignorance political leaders may have regarding their own voting system. More importantly, this detracts from the real challenges our electoral system faces. By citing unfounded claims about illegal immigrants voting in their campaigns, political leaders are lying, contributing to the growing erosion of public trust and furthering the spread of divisive misinformation.
With the election looming, Americans face a choice: continue to let fear and misinformation shape our views on immigration or recognize the strength that lies in diversity. Immigrants are a vital part of America’s past, present and future, and it is time to embrace the values that make this country great — not tear them down.
A graphic illustrating the role of immigration issues in the general election. Discussion around the immigration in the presidential election continues to be present in political discourse between the left and right. ILLUSTRATED BY RAFAEL AUZA/THE STATESMAN.
A graphic illustrating the results from The Statesman’s Special Issue abortion survey. During former President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris’ spirited presidential debate on Sept. 10, a consequential matter raised by moderator Linsey Davis concerned abortion and what reproductive freedom would entail under each candidate’s administration. ILLUSTRATED BY BRITTNEY DIETZ/THE STATESMAN.
Opinion: Protect or prosecute? Stony Brook students’ attitudes on abortion
By Alyssa Pascocello
With the upcoming 2024 presidential election right around the corner, an abundance of hot-button issues are troubling American voters’ minds and hearts. Considering the leading topics on this year’s ballot include climate change, immigration, student loan forgiveness, gun control, inflation, the housing crisis and foreign affairs, young voters in particular are justifiably concerned for their health, safety and futures as American citizens.
During former President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris’ spirited presidential debate on Sept. 10, a consequential matter raised by moderator Linsey Davis concerned abortion and what reproductive freedom would entail under each candidate’s administration. Despite the Republican nominee’s declaration that he is “not in favor of an abortion ban,” Trump subsequently avoided answering Davis’ follow-up question of whether he would veto a national abortion ban if the bill arrived at his desk.
Trump’s abortion stance has sporadically shifted throughout his career in the limelight, evolving from a prochoice position that he vocalized in a 1999 “Meet the Press” interview to now being a proud pro-life advocate. Long rejoicing in his decision to pack the Supreme Court with a conservative justice majority — a choice which directly led to the 5-4 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade — Trump’s conflating sentiments on abortion are disturbing from every angle.
On the night of Tuesday, Oct. 1, in an all-cap statement posted across several social media platforms, Trump expressed that he would not sign a nationwide abortion ban during the vice presidential debate between Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, Harris and Trump’s running mates, respectively. Given the former president’s historically teetering outlook on abortion, it is important to note a crucial detail: more than half of Americans support abortion rights, and Trump knows it.
With the election now almost one week away, a conducive question to ask would be why both Trump and Vance, despite attempting to distance their campaign from the Heritage Foundation’s far-right Project 2025, maintain connections to its core contributors. Of the nearly 240 ties that Trump holds to the playbook’s authors, CNN determined via investigation that the sum consists of his former employees, including six Cabinet secretaries, individuals that “were influential in shaping his first term” and federal officials and delegates that he appointed during his presidency. Brendan Carr, for instance, penned a whole chapter of the initiative and holds his position as a Federal Communications commissioner due to Trump’s designation.
What’s more, if Vance was not in favor of Project 2025, one may question Vance’s decision to write the foreword to President of the Heritage Foundation Kevin Roberts’ upcoming book, characterizing his ironfisted ideas as “an essential weapon” to the preface’s closing call-to-action. Roberts — a long-time friend of Vance’s — recognizes Project 2025 as a means of “institutionalizing Trumpism” and has commended Vance in the past for being “‘one of the leaders’ of the conservative movement.”
Vance and Trump’s ongoing media efforts to detach their public images from Project 2025 despite proven ties to the Heritage Foundation’s agenda underscore the grave danger of being misled by hypocritical rhetoric — particularly from politicians. During the vice presidential face-off, Walz memorialized the late Amber Nicole Thurman and her tragic story, elucidating the direct correlation between her death in 2022 from abortion complications and Georgia’s now-unconstitutional six-week abortion ban. In response to Walz’s comment that Thurman should still be alive, Vance agreed, noting that her death was avoidable.
Rightfully outraged by Vance’s recognition that Thurman’s health complications were preventable, her family issued a statement following the debate, condemning the duplicitous behavior of Republicans such as Vance and Trump, who recently professed to women at a Pennsylvania rally on Sept. 23 that “[he] will be [their] protector.” Thurman’s family criticized this violent strategy of donning a “false guise of protection.” They wrote, “Amber’s tragic death was a direct result of Georgia’s archaic and dangerously restrictive abortion laws, which denied her the lifesaving care she so desperately needed.”
At last, we arrive at the central question: Should state or federal legislature reserve the right to override one’s bodily autonomy and criminalize receiving and/or providing healthcare?
My answer? An emphatic, resounding no. The 14th Amendment affirms that no “state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.” However, in the 1942 landmark case Skinner v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to procreation is a federal right and any infringement on a man’s reproductive autonomy is a civil rights violation. So, the takeaway is that in our post-Roe society, men now have more federal reproductive protections than women and child-bearing individuals do.
In truth, I don’t consider it out of left field to argue that active, state-bystate wars on individuals who can carry children to term are less concerned with advocacy for the unborn, and more so the age-old bigoted tradition of dehumanizing the marginalized. Consider Trump’s self-
professed satisfaction with the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that put abortion regulations “back into the states.” In claiming that every Republican, Democrat and “legal scholar” was hoping for the Dobbs outcome that allowed for 13 full abortion bans and worsened the ongoing maternal mortality crisis, it is within reason to label the prolife stance a lackluster attempt at moralizing reproductive servitude and a forced increase of the labor pool.
It’s also crucial to take into account how state abortion bans disparately impact immigrants, women of color and non-native English speakers due to reduced healthcare access. According to a 2023 study that was published in Frontiers in Public Health and later updated in 2024, the federal protections of Roe reduced the number of maternal mortality rates by 30-40% for people of color during its 50-year precedent. In addition, Black women are now two times more likely “to experience maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity compared to White birthing people.”
As we circle back to the heart of the matter — that abortion is reproductive healthcare — it’s time for my rigmarole to reveal the findings of the Google Form survey we recently circulated. To gauge the student body’s thoughts on abortion, state bans that hinder reproductive health and the upcoming presidential election, The Statesman polled Stony Brook University students of varying years and disciplines. In the survey, students were asked 10 commonly debated questions and were encouraged, but not required, to elaborate on their answers. Here are the results:
Demographics:
Of the total number of respondents, 66.67% were female and used either she/her or she/they pronouns, 16.67% were male and used he/him pronouns and the remaining 16.67% chose complete anonymity.
Additionally, 16.67% of respondents were sophomores, 29.2% were juniors, 29.2% were seniors, 4.2% were graduate students and 20.8% chose full anonymity.
Do you identify as pro-choice, prolife or neither?
Out of all the pollees, nearly all responded that they identify as pro-choice and support abortion rights for women and child-bearing individuals. In contrast, two respondents answered that they are prolife and believe abortion access should be illegal. A single student replied that they identify as neither, due to the labels failing to reflect the complexity of the issue and being positioned in the middle of both stances. Here are some replies:
“How can you say that I have full body autonomy if I cannot medically remove an unwanted growth from my uterus?” an anonymous student wrote.
“If someone personally does not want an abortion that’s fine, but they should NOT control others,” an anonymous student wrote.
Do you believe that abortion is murder?
Nearly identical to the first question’s results, most pollees concluded that the removal of an embryo or fetus from a uterus is not murder, with two students answering that abortion is the murder of an unborn human being. One lone respondent was indifferent to the question. Here are a few responses:
“An embryo at an earlier stage is similar to plant life in that it does not have feelings/ memory, [etc.] and therefore killing it would not be murder. When we destroy plants, we don’t say we murdered a flower. I understand they’re different things, however, I believe murder refers to unjustly ending the life of a being that is living, breathing, cognitive[ly] functions, has memories,” an anonymous student wrote.
“Abortion is denying a human being the right to live. In any moral society, abortion should be legally classified as infanticide and prosecuted as such,” an anonymous student wrote.
Do you believe exceptions can be made for an abortion?
95.8% of respondents agreed that exceptions can be made for an abortion, in cases such as rape, incest, health complications, fetal anomalies and other situations. One student answered that they were apathetic toward the question. Here are a couple of takes:
“Abortion in the case of rape and incest is merely punishing an unborn child for the actions of a horrible human being, letting that evil person get away with their crime. However, in a case where the child is not viable yet, and the mother’s life is in danger, both would die anyway without medical care, so in that case, it would be acceptable,” an anonymous student wrote.
“I believe abortion should be legal regardless of those circumstances, but especially for those situations,” Amen Galinato, a sophomore double majoring in political science and journalism and an assistant arts and culture editor of The Statesman, wrote.
Do you believe abortions should be federally protected?
Displaying less of a consensus than the previous question, 87.5% of students replied that the right to an abortion is a civil right and that federal law should recognize it as such. Contrarily, 8.3% of respondents believe that abortion is murder and should be criminally prosecuted. Not unlike the outcomes of the first two questions, only one student felt that each state should reserve the right to regulate abortion access.
From ‘I agree’ to ‘My opponent is a fiend:’ The evolution of televised electoral debate
By Amit Ben-Bassat
On Oct. 9, 2016, at the end of a heated debate between the thenpresidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, one glimmer of peace revealed itself.
After over an hour of getting nowhere with insults thrown from both sides, potential policies loosely clarified and tension between the two candidates made clear, Karl Becker, a town hall participant, asked a daring question:
“Regardless of the current rhetoric, would either of you name one positive thing that you respect in one another?”
Following a series of smiles from the politicians and audience, the two candidates surprisingly exchanged compliments.
Clinton praised Trump’s children and Trump stated that he respected Clinton’s continuous perseverance. Despite both candidates still finding ways to reiterate their disapproval of one another’s beliefs during each other’s compliments, this small positive moment illustrated a growing vocal frustration people are having with modern elections: the toxicity and lack of respect present in modern televised electoral debates.
A 2019 Pew Research Center survey found that a large majority of Americans, about 85% of adults, feel the tone and nature of political debates within the nation have become more
negative in recent years. Furthermore, about 60% said political debates have become less focused on issues and 73% agree that heated language should be avoided by elected officials because it could encourage violence.
Stephanie Kelton is a professor of economics and political science at Stony Brook University and the 2016 chief economist in the U.S. Senate Budget Committee.
“Rhetoric is in an ugly state,” she said, emphasizing debates have taken a “degenerative path.”
Andrew Engelhardt, a professor in the Department of Political Science at Stony Brook, wrote in an email to The Statesman that it was difficult to explain the differences in modern debates from previous ones.
“It’s hard to say if things are changing or if it’s a feature of candidates. Debates are always contentious — it’s more about how the candidates present handle that contention too. What might have seemed unprofessional and controversial in past contests might now seem normal, so [it’s] hard to say for sure how much things have changed. There’s always something new,” he wrote.
On June 27, President Joe Biden and former President Trump debated live, with 51 million viewers tuning in to watch the highly-anticipated presidential debate. The debate was memorable for multiple
reasons, such as the acknowledgment of the 2020 election outcome and the insurrection that followed, the successes and failures of both Biden and Trump’s presidencies and the candidates’ polarizing views on core ballot topics. However, the candidates’ crude behavior captured far more attention than their political stances. Lack of temperance suffocated the presidential debate and its ability to inform the public of the candidate’s opinions and reform plans, with both sides calling the other “stupid” and “the worst president in U.S. history.”
Whether that’s Biden bringing up Trump’s affair allegations with a porn star, Trump deflecting by mentioning current felony charges against Biden’s son or the now-infamous golf argument between the two candidates bickering about who is better at the game, this debate embodied Americans’ rising frustration with the partisan divide. Trump’s election denialism only exacerbates political tension.
The first occurrence of widely-televised presidential debates was in 1960 between former presidents John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon; the two would go on to debate three more times on live television. Yet, it wouldn’t be until 16 years later that the 1976 presidential debate between former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford would cement televising the event as a quadrennial tradition. The most recent presidential debate was on Sept. 10 and featured Vice President Kamala Harris and Trump in swing state Pennsylvania.
Within the hour-and-a-half TrumpBiden debate earlier this year, candidates were given only about four minutes to answer a question and not throw criticisms at the opponent. Furthermore, the phrase “I agree” was never used in any form by either candidate.
During the entire opening monologue of the Kennedy-Nixon debate, Kennedy made zero remarks against Nixon, and within Nixon’s first minute of presentation he stated, “The things that Senator Kennedy has said, many of us can agree with.” Both sets of candidates opted for two entirely different paths of persuading audiences; Nixon and Kennedy remained respectful and dignified in their disagreements of one
another’s views, whereas Trump and Biden only seemed to further widen the division between the two parties.
This multi-decade cultural contrast between the two debates is disheartening, as it illustrates a shift in the practice of televised electoral debates from a formal introduction to candidates’ policies to a rallying of political bases.
What’s distinct about the KennedyNixon debate is the lack of informal behaviors such as raising voices or physical head shaking which are present in the modern day. Throughout the KennedyNixon debate, both candidates allocated much of their speaking time to sharing recent statistics and facts about the nation to discuss reforms that would be pursued upon inauguration. This is a clear contrast to modern debates where candidates, when not attacking their opponent, briefly discuss their proposed reforms for issues targeting the nation.
Despite the positive merits of the initial Kennedy-Nixon debate, it was the aftermath that set more of a personality-based precedent for electoral debates. Although radio listeners gave the debate a more tied result, television viewers overwhelmingly gave the advantage to Kennedy due to his appearance. Kennedy was crowned winner of the first debate due to his more youthful look while Nixon was criticized for his tired-out demeanor. This is a clear parallel to many reactions to the this year’s debate on Biden’s older appearance and then subsequently Trump’s.
Debate and political culture before and during the earlier debates admittedly weren’t free of informal behavior. Nicknames like Nixon’s “Tricky Dick” that are akin to modern ones like “Sleepy Joe” had a public prevalence. A famous example of an on-screen electoral debate where more divisive language was used is the 1988 vice presidential debate, where Republican nominee and Sen. Dan Quayle compared himself to Kennedy, who was also referred to as Jack Kennedy; this prompted Democratic nominee and Sen. Lloyd Bentsen to say the iconic line, “I knew Jack Kennedy … Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
Despite not affecting the election results, this line became so widespread that it destroyed Quayle’s political career, illustrating the power of what having a memorable line can do for politicians, which in part helps explain the behavior seen in modern election cycles.
When explaining why explicit behavior in debates has gotten worse, Kelton cited the rise of social media as a culprit.
She said the internet has facilitated a goal for politicians to gain a “clip”: a short moment many will find interesting and funny, thus garnering more attention. It has been documented
A graphic showcasing the past and present of presidential candidates such as (left to right, back to front) presidents John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Joe Biden and Donald Trump. This multi-decade cultural contrast between the two debates illustrates a shift in the practice of televised electoral debates from a formal introduction to candidates’ policies to a rallying of political bases. ILLUSTRATED BY JERRY WEINTRAUB/THE STATESMAN.
Abortion attitudes:
Continued from page 11
Here are a few comments:
“I have a lot of conservative values when it comes to government specifically. I’m not a big fan of the government, and I don’t think they should govern the decisions anyone makes with their bodies,” Rafael Auza, a senior majoring in mass communication, wrote.
“Federal protection is key. Just as some states refused to let go of restrictive marriage laws and segregation, we cannot trust that every state will uphold women’s rights in their respective rule,” an anonymous student wrote.
Are you in favor of a nationwide abortion ban even if it reduces accessibility to in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments?
Keeping the trend going, the majority of pollees not only agreed that a nationwide abortion ban should not be enacted, but that federal law should not impede the accessibility of IVF treatments. On the other hand, two students answered that abortion access should be illegal regardless of how it impacts the availability of IVF treatments. One student responded that they were unsure of their answer. Here are some responses:
“I had someone tell me that if it ‘isn’t in God’s will for you to be pregnant, then you shouldn’t be,’ even though they themselves were not naturally conceived. This says all it needs to on people who oppose both abortion and IVF,” Chloe Shea, a fifth-year senior in the Multidisciplinary Studies program studying English and creative writing, wrote.
“Yes, IVF also kills the unborn,” an anonymous student wrote.
Do you believe there should be nationwide bans on emergency contraception (e.g. Plan B/the morningafter pill) and various forms of birth control?
With 8.3% of respondents believing that contraception mediums should be illegal nationwide and an even smaller minority of 4.2% answering that they were indifferent to the question, the 87.5% of students who replied that restricting access
to contraception is an infringement on one’s civil rights takes the cake. Here are a couple of replies:
“This is the lesser argued facet of the abortion issue but I believe it is equally as important. So many people would be put at risk if we were to ban birth control/ contraceptives. It is not just about pregnancy. To limit birth control and contraceptives is inherently misogynistic and ableist,” Emily Mandracchia, a sophomore majoring in English, wrote.
“Pregnancy contraception and birth control reduces pregnancy. Fewer pregnancies yield fewer abortions. By taking preventative measures, women and child-bearing individuals can avoid the possibility of abortion, which can be traumatic … Contraception is a winwin,” Ethan Kiesel, a junior majoring in English, wrote.
Are you in favor of nationwide birth control access if it is prescribed to combat polycystic ovary syndrome, endometriosis, painful menstrual cramping, bodily infections, acne, etc.?
As a follow-up to the previous question, 95.8% of respondents answered that birth control should be accessible nationwide for both reproductive and physical health. 4.2% answered that birth control should be prescribed exclusively for the above reasons and not to prevent pregnancy. Here are a few takes:
“In terms of medical conditions unrelated to the killing of unborn children, prescribing these medications is okay,” an anonymous student wrote.
“[If] you ban birth control women will suffer in more ways than one. [In] fact, men will suffer, and only then will america seem to care when women are dealing with terrible pains of extreme and/or irregular periods and don’t want to have sex because the chances of getting pregnant boost exponentially if there are no birth control means,” an anonymous student wrote.
When should the cutoff for an abortion be?
By far the question with the most diverse response pool, 37.5% do not feel there
should be a cutoff for abortion, 25% believe the second trimester should be the cutoff, 12.5% think that the first trimester should be the cutoff, another 12.5% answered that the third trimester should be the cutoff, 8.3% were unsure of their answer and 4.2% were indifferent to the question. Here are several comments:
“The cutoff is conception,” an anonymous student wrote.
“There should never be a cut off to abortion when the mother’s life is at stake. Women aren’t getting abortions in the third trimester because they just aren’t feeling motherhood anymore. More women die when there are restrictions and abortion cut offs,” Gabriella Cavalcante, a junior majoring in English, wrote.
“I believe the second trimester gives a parent a decent amount of time to first know that they’re pregnant and go to the doctor to review the baby’s condition and see if the baby is vulnerable for any genetic defects or abnormalities. This will give parents enough time to make a well-informed decision on the baby,” an anonymous student wrote.
Do you believe that life begins at conception?
With another mixture of opinions, 62.5% of pollees responded that they believe life begins when the fetus is born, 16.7% answered that life begins at conception, 16.7% replied that they were unsure of their answer and 4.2% were indifferent to the question. Here are some replies:
“Although pregnancy means you are creating life, technically the fetus inside someone when pregnant is not alive and cannot function until after it has been birthed, therefore life occurs when a fetus is born and is able to function independently,” an anonymous student wrote.
“I believe life does begin when the fetus is born into the world, but being that I am a woman the instant accessibility of beautiful real graphics and media of fetuses in utero, it is hard to look at a fetus and not see them as a baby,” Mandracchia wrote.
“I do believe that a very basic form of life begins at conception. It’s not a child
Evolution of electoral debate:
Continued from page 12
that attention spans within the world have reduced. Shorter and faster-to-consume content has become more prevalent and even popular among politicians, as it is easier for their campaigns to share clips on social media.
Another culprit of this alteration is the way modern debates are structured. The Nixon-Kennedy debate gave both candidates multiple uninterrupted minutes to voice their opinions, but since the George H. W. Bush-Michael Dukakis, 1988 debate both candidates were only given two minutes each to answer a question and then a minute
to rebuttal. Ironically it feels that less important issues are being discussed since neither candidate has time to voice clear opinions or call upon facts. This, in turn, makes it feel all more opinionated without substance, especially when the candidates lose focus about the assigned topic at hand.
“It’s hard to think about changing the structure of [televised] debates to address behavior and have them focus on questions. The reason the formats are as they are is that the campaigns negotiate with the hosting organizations over the rules and parameters,” Engelhardt wrote.
however. It’s alive in the same way a cluster of cells is technically alive as well,” Auza wrote.
In the upcoming presidential election, will you be taking proposed abortion policies into consideration when voting for a candidate?
Despite the 79.2% majority answer that abortion stances will be taken into consideration when voting in the upcoming election, 16.7% of respondents replied that they will not be casting a vote in November, followed by an even smaller 4.2% that will not be considering abortion policies when voting. Here are a couple of takes:
“I would never vote for any politician who is happily ripping away civil rights of minority groups in this country. Republicans are supposed to be advocates for a more hands-off government, so it seems hypocritical for those same people to be insistent on creating legislature that does the exact opposite by invading the rights of bodily autonomy,” Olivia Erndl, a senior English teacher preparation major and the copy chief of The Statesman, wrote.
“Both Trump and Harris do not advocate for the rights of the unborn as much as they should, however Trump is marginally better due to his Supreme Court nominations, which got Roe overturned. However, both are involved in the murder of thousands of innocent people, including the unborn as well as the current victims in Gaza,” an anonymous student wrote.
While the above results reveal stark contrasts in the metrics that determine personhood, the majority opinion justly stresses the need for federal legislation that recognizes the liberty and autonomy of the child-bearer first and foremost. Thus, I urge you, the reader, to not only reflect on but factor in the high stakes that face reproductive freedom in your voting decision this election cycle. If state bans on abortion continue to be put into effect, it won’t be long before more stories like Thurman’s become commonplace and Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” feels less dystopian.
He further explained that while moderators ideally would push further for candidates to answer specific questions and stay on topic, candidates have no obligation to participate in the debate and they won’t happen if their campaigns can’t settle on the rules for the debate.
Another point to consider surrounding the idea of restructuring modern debates is whether that action may hurt the public’s understanding of the candidates. Kelton said seeing candidates more informally and sporadically may come with the benefit of seeing them for how they truly are. The
recent Trump-Biden debate had the new feature of muted microphones to reduce the chances of candidates interrupting one another. However, Kelton offered an alternate perspective that this may actually help the candidates appear more restrained and calm despite not being such.
It’s hard to predict the future of televised debates but one could hope candidates become more respectful of each other and prioritize the American people rather than insulting their opponent.
Editor-in-Chief.............Lori Saxena
Managing Editor.........................Jenna Zaza
Managing Editor.................Mariam Guirgis
News Editor..............................................Sky Crabtree
Opinions Editor Aloki Pandya
Sports Editor..........................................Alex Streinger
Arts & Culture Editor........................Amen Galinato
Multimedia Editor................................Brittney Dietz
Copy Chief..................................................Olivia Erndl
Asst. News Editor.......................................Viyang Hao
Asst. Opinions Editor Vinod Kripalani
Asst. Opinions Editor Aisha Diomande
Asst. Sports Editor..............................George Caratzas
Asst. Sports Editor............................Cameron Takmil
Asst. Sports Editor...........................Anthony DiCocco
Asst. Arts & Culture Editor............Sarah Chaudhry
Asst. Multimedia Editor.................Angelina Livigni
Asst. Multimedia Editor.....................Stanley Zheng
Asst. Copy Editor....................................Sarah Aguiar
Asst. Copy Editor.............................Alyssa Pascocello
Asst. Copy Editor........................Madison Salimullah
Contact Us
To contact the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editors about organizational comments, questions, suggestions, corrections or photo permission, email editors@sbstatesman.com.
The Statesman is a student-run, student-written incorporated publication at Stony Brook University in New York. The paper was founded as The Sucolian in 1957 at Oyster Bay, the original site of Stony Brook University. In 1975, The Statesman was incorporated as a not-for-profit, student-run organization. Its editorial board, writers and multimedia staff are all student volunteers.
The Statesman and its editors have won several awards for student journalism and several past editors have gone on to enjoy distinguished careers in the field of journalism.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in columns or in the Letters and Opinions section are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Statesman.
For more Statesman content, visit us at sbstatesman. com and follow us on Twitter and Instagram @sbstatesman.
Suffolk Candidates:
Continued from page 2
Officer. As an Assembly member, he advocated for veterans’ issues, law enforcement and reducing government inefficiencies. He also supported child protection and educational reform.
Graf’s judicial career includes his appointment as an acting Supreme Court Justice, where he is assigned to John P. Cohalan, Jr. Court Complex in Central Islip.
Paul E. Hennings (Democrat, Republican, Conservative) is an attorney. Hennings has a long legal career with experience in civil litigation.
Paul M. Hensley (Democrat, Republican, Conservative) currently serves as a judge in Suffolk County. He focuses on civil and criminal cases.
Andrew A. Crecca (Democrat, Republican, Conservative) earned his law degree from St. John’s University School of Law. He was elected County Court Judge in 2004 and served in matrimonial matters and the Integrated Domestic Violence Court.
In 2010, he was elected Justice of the New York Supreme Court, 10th Judicial District.
Suffolk County Court Judge
Philip Goglas (Republican) is a County Court Judge. He earned his law degree from St. John’s University School of Law and was appointed to in 2015. Prior to his judicial role, he worked as an attorney in private practice, specializing in personal injury and civil litigation. He is known for implementing programs that assist non-violent offenders, including the Judicial Diversion Program.
Peter R. McGreevy (Republican) earned his law degree from Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center. He served as an Assistant District Attorney, focusing on serious crimes, like drug violations.
Family Court Judge of Suffolk County
Stuart P. Besen (Democrat) serves as a Family Court Judge. He got his law degree from St. John’s University School of Law. He had a diverse legal career in private practice and public service. He is dedicated to family issues like child support and domestic violence.
Darlene Jorif Mangane (Democrat) got her law degree from Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center and worked as a legal advocate in family law, focusing on child welfare Mangane has been an active member of community organizations that support families and children.
Jordan S. Katz (Democrat) got a law degree from New York Law School and worked in roles such as family and child welfare law.
Representative in Congress, 1st Congressional District
John P. Avlon (Democrat) was a journalist. He is focusing on practical solutions to bipartisan issues, like
infrastructure, climate change and healthcare. Avlon supports clean energy and coastal protection investment. He advocates for expanding access to affordable care but does not fully support Medicare for All. He proposes strengthening the Affordable Care Act.
Nicholas J. LaLota (Republican) is a Navy veteran and former Suffolk County legislator. He emphasizes conservative economic policies and strong national security. LaLota supports lowering taxes and decentralizing the federal branch to give states more power.
LaLota also supports the Second Amendment and opposes progressive criminal justice reforms. He calls for stricter sentencing for violent crimes. LaLota also supports restrictions on abortion.
Representative in Congress, 2nd Congressional District
Rob Lubin (Democrat) is running on working families, social justice and environmental sustainability. He advocates for expanding access to affordable healthcare.
Andrew R. Garbarino (incumbent Republican) emphasizes national security and economic development. He believes supporting small businesses is essential to economic recovery and growth.
Garbarino’s policies includes a enhancing public safety like increase funding for law enforcement agencies. He also advocates for responsible fiscal policies that prioritize reducing government spending while promoting economic growth.
Representative in Congress, 3rd Congressional District
Thomas R. Suozzi (Democrat) is seeking a return to Congress with a strong record of bipartisan policies on issues like healthcare and infrastructure. During his previous tenure, Suozzi was known for his pragmatic approach to governance to achieve bipartisan reforms that directly impacted the community.
Suozzi recognizes that climate change poses a significant threat to future generations and advocates for comprehensive approaches to environmental sustainability.
Michael J. LiPetri, Jr. (Republican) advocates to support law enforcement and enhance community security. He aims to address rising crime rates and improve safety measures.
State Senator of the 1st Senatorial District
Sarah S. Anker (incumbent Democrat) is a strong advocate for environmental issues, educational funding and healthcare access.
Anker has supported policies that protect natural resources and promote sustainability. She also supports expanding healthcare coverage and reducing costs for families.
Anthony H. Palumbo (Republican) focuses on policies that support small businesses and foster job creation. He believes reducing regulatory burdens on businesses is essential for stimulating economic development.
Palumbo also advocates for public safety measures that support law enforcement.
State Senator of the 2nd Senatorial District
Craig G. Herskowitz (Democrat) is campaigning on a progressive platform to address issues like education and healthcare.
His campaign seeks to mobilize voters around issues of social equity and environmental sustainability, promoting a vision for a better future.
Mario R. Mattera (Republican) has a background in local governance and community service. He previously served as a member of the Suffolk County Legislature, focusing on constituent services and ensuring that local needs were met.
State Senator of the 3rd Senatorial District
Michael L. Conroy (Democrat) wants to make New York a thriving place for work and community pride. He has experience as a construction worker and labor representative. He is a long-time member of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, where he served on the executive board for 14 years.
He also has a 20-year tenure as a member and former Vice Chairman of the Suffolk County and Brookhaven Town Democratic Committees, along with his role on the New York State Democratic Committee.
Dean Murray (incumbent Republican) advocates for a safer and more affordable New York. He is focused on restoring law and order by supporting police. He emphasizes the need for common-sense solutions to foster business growth and create job opportunities.
During his tenure, he brought billions in state aid for Long Island schools, introduced legislation to combat the opioid and fentanyl epidemic and passed the Suffolk County Water Restoration Act to ensure clean water.
Murray opposes initiatives like the Congestion Pricing scheme, which he views as a financial burden on residents. His platform support investing in programs that aid veterans, seniors and families rather for undocumented immigrants.
As the 2024 election date approaches, the candidates from Suffolk County present a range of perspectives that could shape the future of local governance. Voter engagement will be crucial on Nov. 5 as citizens consider how their choices will impact the county and the University’s role within it.
How the Center for Civic Justice was created
By Javin Valentin
Established in fall 2019, the Center for Civic Justice (CCJ) became a formal unit within the Division of Student Affairs and Department of Student Community Development with a mission to provide all students with equal access to the democratic process.
Stony Brook University’s CCJ is dedicated to advancing civic engagement, public service and social responsibility among students — a responsibility ever-present in the midst of the upcoming 2024 presidential election.
In 2020, the CCJ hosted a virtual New York Voter Engagement Summit to help students prepare for the presidential election.
In this summit, students were informed on the best practices for voter registration, techniques to encourage participation during elections and networking with national partners.
On March 5, SUNY Chancellor John B. King, Jr. announced the inaugural class of the Civic Education and Engagement and Civil Discourse Fellowship. It’s a program designed to promote and enhance civic education across the SUNY system.
One of the 10 fellows chosen was Ashley Mercado-Liegi, who works as the assistant director of the CCJ.
She was tasked with fostering a community of practice for faculty and staff on civic education, providing resources for SUNY’s new United States History and Civic Education curriculum and organizing a convening to highlight civic engagement initiatives.
Mercado-Liegi said the CCJ originated from efforts to provide more resources for students during the 2018 midterm elections.
“The Center first was created in early 2018, and so it started as a group of students around the midterm elections,” Mercado-Liegi said. “Student leaders came together to do civic engagement: hosting voter registrations, tabling at orientations, etc.”
However, Mercado-Liegi believes that being politically involved goes far beyond voting.
“I believe that it looks different for every single student. We obviously have a lot of students here who are eligible to vote but we also have students who aren’t eligible to vote,” she said.
Racial and gender dynamics:
Continued from page 3
This societal pushback on diverse voices can be traced back to the creation of the modern-day public sphere in the High Middle Ages. German philosopher Jürgen Habermas identified a connection between capitalism, democracy and the public: those eligible and permitted to participate in governance. Before then, monarchs and the royal courts controlled the public sphere; as mercantilism grew, authority shifted toward the European bourgeoisie. Habermas argues this is the public sphere we currently live under, one that is biased toward white, upper-class men.
“Popular culture and mainstream culture like television and social media, those are public or semi-public spaces in which there’s potentially a cacophony of voices. And one of the ways that we can participate in [the public sphere] is through formal and generic conventions,” Hesford said. “In terms of political speech, those conventions are very masculine and they’re very white. The whole use of her first name versus his last name is revealing of that, but it’s also a way of reproducing those expectations.”
Nicknames or insults that candidates throw at one another are also examples of harmful political rhetoric. During the 2016 election, Trump often called Clinton “crooked Hillary” and “crazy Hillary.” Trump normally doesn’t shy away from assigning political opponents a nickname that sticks; however, he never coined one for Harris. Both Groenendyk and Huddy said his campaign advisors probably warned Trump against doing so because it would’ve been explicitly racist.
With politics feeling like a large shadow looming over new voters, a lot of people find themselves abstaining from voting, believing that their vote does not make an impact.
According to a study by Tufts University’s Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, students who had not received encouragement to vote from teachers in high school were more than twice as likely to agree with the statement ‘Voting is a waste of time’ as those who had been encouraged: 26% vs. 12%.”
Mercado-Liegi said she believes that this mindset usually stems from feeling uninformed and unimportant.
“A lot of voter apathy unfortunately comes from people who don’t either understand the importance of voting or do not understand that one singular vote can make an impact,” she said.
Marcado-Liegi, who has a background in local politics and government, has seen candidates lose elections by 100 votes or less. It is those situations that put into perspective how much your vote matters.
Despite the CCJ’s strong desire to create a culture where it is not taboo to talk about politics, they have faced adversity when it comes to making the process of becoming politically active less overwhelming.
“I think that civil discourse is really important,” MercadoLiegi said. “I think for us [having productive conversations with people who don’t have the same belief] is always challenging because there is so much polarization and there’s a lot of misinformation in the media which creates a divide among society.”
To help overcome these challenges, the CCJ has been focusing on their outreach efforts.
On Tuesday, Nov. 5, the CCJ will be hosting a polling location on campus for community members who wish to partake in the democratic process.
This year, due to the anticipated high foot traffic, the on-campus polling location at the Walter J. Hawrys Campus Recreation and Wellness Center will be closed from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. for students to vote.
Additionally, the Stony Brook Union lobby will be reserved for debriefs and other politically engaging events. They will
partner with different organizations like the Student Support Team, the Center for Prevention and Outreach, Counseling and Psychological Services and Campus Residences to have programming designed so that voters can ease their anxiety through guided meditation and other mental health resources.
As an incentive, the CCJ is partnering with Uber and Lyft to give community members discounted rides to get to their voting sites.
If a student’s polling location is not on campus, they will be able to use codes provided by the CCJ to redeem the discounted price.
“Voting for the presidential elections is not where the work stops,” Mercado-Liegi said. “There is so much work to be done at a local level. It goes beyond the ballot.”
“This ‘name-calling,’ for his own supporters, they love it, but we don’t care about them. They’re going to vote for him. So it doesn’t matter. That’s like throwing red meat to the lions,” Huddy said. “But it’s the people in the middle, the undecided voters. And I think on average, [nicknames] are a bit of a turn off … I think it is probably worse for a woman to use these names against an opponent than it is for a man.” Cook, Hesford and Huddy agreed that Harris faces far greater obstacles than just the intentional mispronunciation or misuse of her name. They said as a woman of color, she is
likely to encounter racist and sexist remarks — especially when making contentious decisions — should she be elected to office. Names and their usage are important because they act as cognitive shortcuts, compressing information about a person into a couple of syllables. When a person misuses Harris’ name, “associations and the power that she has gained, either by association with her family, or her background, or her heritage, or from earned titles such as honorifics, are lost,” Cook said.
Vice President Kamala Harris speaks during a campaign event at the Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote Presidential Town Hall on July 13 in Pennsylvania. In this year’s presidential election, a powerful linguistic dynamic is shaping public discourse between Former President Donald Trump being referred to by his last name while Vice President Kamala Harris is often referred to by her first.
PHOTO COURTESY OF DREW
The doors of the Center for Civic Justice (CCJ) located in the lower level of the Stony Brook Union showcasing voting information for the upcoming general election. BRITTNEY DIETZ/THE STATESMAN.
