10-16-19

The Pitt News

T h e i n d e p e n d e n t s t ude nt ne w spap e r of t he U niversity of Pittsburgh | PIttnews.com | october 16, 2019 ­| Volume 110| Issue 44

IRRESISTIBLY ADORABLE

SGB TO FINALIZE CLUB NAMING GUIDELINE PROPOSAL THIS WEEK Emily Drzymalski Staff Writer

year. But since deans’ roles involve managing faculty employment contracts and negotiating salaries, they normally sit on the opposite end of the bargaining table from faculty, according to Tyler Bickford, an associate professor in the English Department.

That typically doesn’t change when faculty form a union. The Public Employe Relations Act, which governs union policy in the public sector, states that supervisors cannot be in a bargaining unit with other employees. The Act defines “supervisor” as anyone who has the authority to hire, suspend, lay

Student Government Board provided updates on several ongoing initiatives at their meeting Tuesday night, including the launch of board member Eric Macadangdang’s initiative to install free menstrual product dispensers in bathrooms around campus.

He made the issue part of his campaign platform during last year’s elections, and said during his report he was proud that the initiative has made headway, with 23 tampon and pad dispensers now installed around campus with the help of facilities management and the Period Project through the Graduate School of Public Health.

Macadangdang added that SGB is footing the bill for two additional dispensers to be located in the men’s bathrooms on the main and lower floors of the William Pitt Union.

“This is just a step in a more inclusive direction to make sure that this amazing program is serving a wider audience,” Macadangdang said.

During his president’s report, SGB President Zechariah Brown provided an update on the ongoing effort to preserve the names of independent student organizations in the wake of updated Student Organization Resource Center naming guidelines.

SORC announced in late August that beginning fall 2020, its registration guidelines would prohibit the names of independent student organizations from

See Union on page 2

See SGB on page 4

A student pats a Starship delivery robot on Tuesday afternoon near Hillman library. The self-driving robots are expected to launch later this fall and have been spotted in various locations around Oakland this week. Thomas Yang | assistant visual editor

SERIES: PITT INCLUDED RETIREES, ADMINISTRATORS IN FACULTY UNION BARGAINING UNIT Neena Hagen

Senior Staff Writer Union organizers have long estimated that around 3,500 faculty at Pitt are eligible to be in a faculty union, citing employment numbers from the University factbook, which Pitt is legally obligated to publish every year. The University, however, included more than 4,000 faculty on the union’s eligibility list.

A June analysis by USW determined that up to 783 people do not belong on the list.

The Pitt News obtained more than 100 of those names, and found that the “unjustified

inclusions” fall into three distinct categories — administrators, graduate students and faculty who retired or left Pitt years ago.

Administrators Documents presented by USW at the July hearings reveal that Pitt’s list included 76 “administrators.” Most held the rank of assistant or associate dean, but some were ranked as high as vice provost.

A total of 15 deans work at Pitt — one for each school — and that’s not including dozens more vice deans, associate deans and assistant deans. Some hold faculty appointments, and may teach one or two courses per

News Union, pg. 1

off, promote or fire employees.

Every administrator included on Pitt’s list supervises several dozen faculty and has at least some say in their department’s hiring, firing and recruitment processes, because, as deans, they control employment contracts.

One administrator on the list has publicly testified on behalf of the administration in the PLRB’s graduate student union hearings. On Oct. 4, 2018, when graduate students were still fighting for the right to unionize, Associate Dean Holger Hoock testified as a witness for the University administration.

Five months after those hearings, the University included him on the list of faculty eligible for the union’s bargaining unit.

The Pitt News asked Hoock three times in a period of 10 days to answer questions regarding his administrative role and his stance on faculty unionization. He did not respond to requests for comment.

“The entire point of a union is to give faculty a voice [to stand up to] the administration,” McAndrew said. “Now, administrators could upend the union from the inside.”

Bickford said there’s “practically no chance” that administrators such as deans will end up in the final bargaining unit, but “you never know what [the University’s] gonna pull.”

On the second day of hearings, the administration’s lawyers submitted a revised list from USW’s original list of 76 administrators, with only 14 people whom they said were not administrators and therefore eligible to vote. Pitt spokespeople would not explain why the other 62 names were removed.

When asked via email to comment on organizers’ allegations that Pitt broke the law, Chancellor Patrick Gallagher and Provost Ann Cudd did not respond. University spokesperson Kevin Zwick declined to make Gallagher, Cudd or any top officials available for an interview.

pittnews.com

Zwick said Pitt denies all wrongdoing, and that the University followed procedures and processes set by the PLRB. “The University of Pittsburgh has never attempted to stall a union election or taken any action to oppose the faculty unionization efforts,” Zwick said. “What the University has done is follow the PLRB process and worked to ensure that faculty members have information — presented in a fair and accurate manner — to draw their own conclusions.”

Faculty who no longer teach at Pitt Faculty who no longer teach at Pitt — retired professors and those who have quit or left for other universities — make up the largest portion of unjustified inclusions, numbering several hundred, organizers claim.

The Pitt News obtained names of more than 30 professors emeritus who were included on the union eligibility list. Though a few professors emeritus teach an occasional class at Pitt, they are, by definition, retired.

Pitt’s website has documented the retirements of many faculty on the list above. David Brumble and Lucy Fischer retired from the English department in 2017 and 2018, respectively.

Both Van Beck Hall and Seymour Drescher appear on the department of history’s retired faculty page, though the page doesn’t specify which year each professor retired. Neither has responded to questions about when they retired or most recently taught classes.

Kathryn Puskar was associate dean for undergraduate education before she became a professor emeritus of nursing in 2019, so, according to organizers, she would’ve been ineligible for the bargaining unit even before she retired.

Marina Antic, an inclusion not on the professors emeritus list above, is now an assistant professor at Indiana University. She hasn’t taught at Pitt since 2009.

According to precedent set by Temple University’s faculty union, the most recent precedent for state-related schools like Pitt under the jurisdiction of the PLRB, faculty must have taught in each of the past two semesters — fall 2018 and spring 2019,

In July, union organizers accused the University of breaking the law to derail unionization efforts. tpn file photo when applying the precedent to Pitt — to be eligible for a faculty union bargaining unit. Part-time faculty who only teach recurring courses during one semester of the year must have taught in each of the last two years to be eligible.

Hundreds of faculty included on the list haven’t taught in the last two or three years, let alone the past year, organizers claim.

When asked why Pitt went against precedent set by Temple, Zwick said “there are many precedents for what makes someone a regular part-time employee that have been used across different educational institutions that look at different time periods and apply different standards.”

Zwick did not respond to questions about which precedents Pitt considered when putting together the list of faculty eligible for a union.

Graduate students The University included several graduate students on the list it sent to the PLRB, a couple of whom were also eligible to vote in April’s graduate student union election, according to organizers.

Students who hold graduate appointments — teaching assistant, teaching fellow, graduate student assistant or graduate student fellow — that make them eligible for a graduate student union cannot simultaneously hold faculty appointments that would make them eligible for a faculty union, according to USW. But graduate students can, in some cas-

October 16, 2019

es, attain faculty status. When graduate students run out of funding in their final years and exhaust their available opportunities as TAs, TFS, GSAs or GSFs, the department can hire them in an adjunct or lecturer role.

Zwick said the list includes a “small number of graduate students” who received faculty appointments separate from their academic programs.

Organizers said they can’t find any evidence that graduate students on the list hold faculty appointments. But public records don’t enumerate an individual’s academic appointments. Only private employment records, which organizers have subpoenaed from the University, would reveal that information. It’s doubtful that graduate students were justifiably included on the list, organizers say, but still possible.

Some of Pitt’s peer institutions, such as Rutgers, include graduate assistants and teaching assistants within their faculty union, because they have an umbrella union for all individuals with research and teaching appointments.

Pitt, however, has a separate graduate campaign trying to unionize more than 2,000 teaching assistants, teaching fellows, graduate assistants and graduate student researchers.

The rest of this story will be published later this week and will detail negotiations between union organizers and Pitt’s administration, as well as outline the next steps for the faculty union campaign.

2

SURVEY RESULTS HIGHLIGHT MISCONDUCT, SEXUAL ASSAULT ON CAMPUS Jon Moss

Assistant News Editor The Association of American Universities released a 217-page report and data tables Tuesday examining the current state of sexual assault and misconduct on 33 university campuses, including Pitt.

Rates of sexual assault, harassment, intimate partner violence and other issues relating to sexual misconduct were recorded in the AAU’s Campus Climate Survey. Among Pitt students, 18.6% of females and 10.7% of males responded to the survey.

Chancellor Patrick Gallagher wrote in a campus-wide email Tuesday that the survey results show that Pitt’s current efforts to prevent these actions are “insufficient.”

“Our goal is — and always will be — to eradicate sexual assault and misconduct on campus and ensure that everyone feels safe, respected and supported as members of our university community,” Gallagher said. “There is simply no other acceptable option — and no other vision for Pitt worth working toward.”

He outlined several new, community-driven actions the University will be undertaking to try and combat sexual misconduct and assault, including: - Launching a dedicated education and prevention office - Establishing an education and prevention task force to help evaluate and advance solutions - Create several dedicated funding streams - Special Pitt Seed funding cycle — open to faculty, staff and students — devoted to financing solutions for preventing sexual misconduct - Grants administered by student government boards and earmarked for student groups - Grants, selected via a peer-review process, to fund research on preventing sexual misconduct - Hosting listening sessions to answer questions and gather real-time feedback on proposed solutions and new opportunities Another top University official, Vice Provost and Dean of Students Kenyon Bonner, also sent a campus-wide email Tuesday about the survey.

Bonner called its results “sobering.”

“Despite our intentional and sustained efforts, our students continue to be harmed by

pittnews.com

Chancellor Patrick Gallagher announced in a Tuesday email that the University would be implementing a community-driven response following the Association of American Universities 17-page report examining the current state of sexual assault and misconduct on campus. tpn file photo incidents of sexual misconduct,” Bonner said.

“We are not alone, of course. Our entire culture is in the midst of grappling with the heartbreaking public health crisis of sexual assault.”

The report explored several types of actions on campus — sexual assault and misconduct, harassment, intimate partner violence and stalking.

Sexual assault and misconduct Among female Pitt students, 57.4% said they experienced penetration or sexual touching involving physical force or inability to consent or stop what was happening on campus or affiliated property and 42.7% of male respondents said the same. For both women and men, about 30% of incidents occurred in either a University residence hall, dorm or other residential housing.

Of the acts, female Pitt students said 32.3% were committed by someone the woman knew or recognized but who was not a friend, 31.1% by a friend, 24.5% by someone the women did not know or recognize, 21.8% by someone the

woman was involved or intimate with at the time and 11.9% by someone the woman had previously been involved or intimate with.

Of the acts, male Pitt students said 48.4% were committed by a friend, 34% by someone the man previously had been involved or intimate with, 32.6% by someone the man was involved or intimate with at the time and 24.2% by a classmate.

For about 45% of all incidents, women said in about equal amounts that they thought they could handle it themselves, did not think it was serious enough to contact programs or resources, and felt embarrassed, ashamed or that it would be too emotionally difficult. For about 70% of both types of incidents, men said they thought they could handle it themselves.

The number of times they experienced sexual contact without voluntary agreement also differed based on gender. Among undergraduate women, 87% said they never experienced this before, while 97.1% of undergraduate men

October 16, 2019

said the same. Among trans men and women, nonbinary, genderqueer, questioning or otherwise gender-non-conforming (TGQN) students, 77.1% said they never experienced this before.

Harassment Nearly half — 44.8% — of female and male students said they had been harassed in some way by another student or someone else associated with Pitt during their time at the University. The vast majority — more than 70% in all groups — did not report any of these incidents to University programs or resources.

More than half of TGQN students and undergraduate women students — and about 30% of undergraduate men — said that someone made inappropriate or offensive comments about their or someone’s else’s body, appearance or sexual activities. Slightly less than half — 49.7% of TGQN students and 41.7% of undergraduate women — said someone made sexual remarks or told sexual jokes or sexual stories that were insulting or offensive to them and 16% of undergraduate men said similarly.

Intimate Partner Violence About 10% of Pitt students — 15.7% of undergraduate women, 10.1% of undergraduate men and 20.2% of TGQN students — said since they have been a student, a partner has controlled or tried to control them, threatened physical harm, used physical force or physically hurt or injured them.

About 80% of students did not contact University programs or resources regarding these experiences. Among those who did not report, about half said that it was not serious enough to report and that they could handle it themselves.

Stalking About 20% of Pitt students — 26.9% of undergraduate women, 16% of undergraduate men and 37.4% of TGQN students — said since they have been a student, they have experienced some sort of stalking behavior. Two-thirds of students said this behavior made them fear for the safety of themselves or someone else they know, or has caused them substantial emotional distress.

About 68% of students did not contact University programs or resources regarding these experiences. Among those who did not report, about half said that it was not serious enough to report and that they could handle it themselves.

3

SGB, pg. 1 including University trademarks or wordmarks like “Pitt” and “Panther,” instead encouraging clubs to use phrases such as “at Pitt” or “at the University of Pittsburgh.”

Brown said at last Tuesday’s meeting that the board’s proposal is to grandfather current organizations that have been on campus longer than the pre-existing, approximately decade-old naming guidelines have been in effect. All remaining organizations would have to change their names, but would be allowed to sell any merchandise they have already purchased to try and prevent any large financial losses.

Brown said he met Friday with Vice Provost and Dean of Students Kenyon Bonner and talked about his proposal.

Bonner will be providing Brown with “hard numbers” for how long the preexisting naming guidelines have been in effect.

He said the board’s proposal for how student organizations can keep their existing names is currently unfinished, but expects for it to be completed by the end of the week and sent to Bonner.

“The proposal is being written,” Brown said. “Of course with sickness and student life, there has been a couple days of a delay, but it will be written.”

SGB member Lynn Dang also provided an update on her open education resources initiative. Dang said she and SGB’s academic affairs committee are working to host a conference to discuss the different ways to utilize OERs with Teaching Partners, a community that engages faculty who use the University Center for Teaching and Learning’s resources to support and enhance their teaching practice.

Judicial Committee Chair Grace Nelson also provided an update on the work she and her committee are doing regarding University policy about excuses for missed work and absences for religious reasons. The Pitt News reported last month on difficulties that Jewish students face when making up missed work or absences due to observing High Holy Days.

She said the committee is in the information-gathering phase, and asked that students approach the committee to discuss both “good and bad” experiences.

pittnews.com

WHAT’S FOR LUNCH?

PLAN TO Eat on Campus with

LUNCH MONEY

Register online: lunchmoney.pitt.edu

PITT.SODEXOMYWAY.COM October 16, 2019

4

Opinions

Editorial: House bill necessary to reform higher education pittnews.com

ELIZABETH WARREN’S ‘LOBBYIST TAX’ ATTACKS FIRST AMENDMENT IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE Michael Clifford Staff Columnist

For better or for worse, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has amassed a reputation for having a plan for everything throughout the Democratic presidential primary.

A variety of criticisms have been directed at these initiatives, especially her tax proposals — largely on grounds of practicality — but constitutionality, a relatively minor issue so far, is now looming larger in light of her latest proposal to combat money in politics.

Dubbed the “excessive lobbying tax,” Warren’s idea is more than an ineffective proposal to curtail government corruption by limiting advocacy spending by organizations. Going even further, the tax would be a means to finance the creation of a new federal agency to scrutinize lobbying organizations that oppose legislation on their clients’ behalf, flying in the face of both the First Amendment and multiple Supreme Court rulings.

The party has been endlessly attacking the ruling as enabling corruption, especially the court’s argument that the right for organizations to spend money on political advocacy, apart from donating directly to candidates, is protected under the First Amendment. A sounder justification for opposing a legal ruling other than partisan hostility, and a grasp of what lobbying is, should be expected of Warren, a legal scholar, but her proposal as laid out by her campaign does nothing to dispel such worries.

“We’ll give more money to federal agencies that are facing significant lobbying activity,” Warren writes in her proposal.

“Every time a company above the $500,000 threshold spends money lobbying against a rule from a federal agency, the taxes on that spending will go directly to the agency to

pittnews.com

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., plans to institute a tax on “excessive lobbying,” in an attempt to limit impacts on decision makers by lobbying organizations. Nirmalendu Majumdar, Ames Tribune | tns help it fight back.”

This scheme, called a Lobbying Defense Trust Fund, involves taking money directly from those that petition lawmakers and communicate ideas and using it for the purpose of funding policies that they oppose as punishment. Instead of insulating government officials from corruption, it targets people who stand in opposition to increased federal regulation, including some aimed at specific industries — a major piece of Warren’s agenda.

Though political advocacy spending, a common type of lobbying, is certainly a form of protected speech, accusations must remain limited. It would be difficult to prove that a tax — ranging from 35% on spending above $500,000 to 75% on spending above $5 million — on such expenditures is an attempt to suppress the views of Warren’s political opponents, and such a claim should not be advanced without sufficient evidence.

On its own merits, however, reasonable de-

fense of this policy remains scarce.

The case for taxing lobbying activity is made on the basis of protecting the “public interest,” and Warren details the supposed defeat of new rules, regulations and consequently the will of the people, by corporate lobbyists — which, true or not, is a type of petition for the “redress of grievances.” The nation’s highest court has ruled against the flimsy arguments for fees applied to the press and door-to-door political advocacy, in addition to previous attempts at outright bans on campaign expenditures — something in which Warren has also expressed interest.

Limiting the influence of election spending is a popular proposition among most Americans, especially self-identified Democrats, which may explain why Warren has decided to take her own plan a step further than other candidates. Lobbyists are not a popular group in America, and pushing them out of the picture seems like an easy

October 16, 2019

fix to the problem of public corruption, but misses the mark. For one, only individuals can make campaign donations — the notions that the Supreme Court has said that “corporations are people” and “money is speech” are absurd.

“The Amendment is written in terms of ‘speech,’ not speakers,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in his concurring opinion to the Citizens United ruling. “Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals — and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion.”

Secondly, multiple federal watchdogs are already employed for the purpose of investigating corruption and criminal activity among public officials, but it’s not criminal for politicians to support causes that lobbyists also support. Corruption isn’t substantiated by the legal petition of elected representatives, either — and nothing of the sort can credibly be asserted unless evidence of bribery is demonstrated.

Warren is not alone in her contempt for the Court’s decision in Citizens United, or her distaste for lobbying. That notwithstanding, a presidential candidate with a previous career as a legal scholar does not have so much of an excuse for misunderstanding the fundamental democratic liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Freedom to expend resources — usually money — in order to champion political causes, and to challenge public policies, is one of them. If Warren feels that her presidential platform can only be facilitated by limitations on that freedom, then she is not, as she elucidates, “put[ting] power back in the hands of the people” — and that platform might not be one worth pursuing.

5

Sports

Waiver Wire Weekly: Darnold, Tate could serve as crucial fill-ins pittnews.com

column

PITT MEN’S SOCCER LEBRON IS ALL FOR ACTIVISM — SUCCUMBS TO PSU, UNTIL IT’S AN INCONVENIENCE 3-1 Dominic Campbell Senior Staff Writer

The Pitt men’s soccer team traveled to face in-state rival Penn State on Tuesday night and failed to capitalize on its recent momentum, losing 3-1 at Jeffrey Field in State College.

The Panthers (6-5-2 overall) came into the game following a successful home stand in which the team won three of its four games, only to lose 2-1 to No. 20 North Carolina. The Nittany Lions (6-2-2) also entered as a team on a hot streak, having only lost twice all season — both to top-10 opponents.

The first half saw Pitt lead the attack, getting the first four shots of the game within the first 13 minutes. Only one of these five shots had to be saved, though, the first by junior forward Alexander Dexter. Penn State launched the next two shots, one from senior midfielder Aaron Molloy that was blocked and another from redshirt freshman defender Adam Laundree that missed left.

The Panthers continued the offensive onslaught, but still couldn’t get the goal that would put them in front. They got the next five shots, four of which came from first-year midfielder Valentin Noel.

Three of his shots were also on goal, forcing first-year goalkeeper Kris Shakes to make saves. The other shot was taken by junior forward Edward Kizza, which again was saved by Shakes to keep the score level.

Despite Pitt’s continued pressure, Penn State managed to take the lead on a penalty kick from Malloy in the 37th minute after a foul on redshirt junior defender Tim Ekpone. Penn State only had

pittnews.com

one other shot in the first half, which was from sophomore forward Joshua Dabora.

To recap the first half, the Panthers managed to take nine shots, five of which had to be saved by Shakes, while the Nittany Lions only had four shots, one of which was a penalty shot, that gave them a 1-0 lead at the end of the first half.

Penn State then broke the game wideopen, scoring two goals within the first four minutes of the second half to take a 3-0 lead. The first goal came from firstyear forward Liam Butts, who slipped it in the lower right corner of the goal after a brilliant assist from Molloy. The second goal came off from two headed passes by Laundree and redshirt junior Pierre Reedy. When the second pass came down, first-year defender Jalen Watson was there to notch his first goal of the season.

The Panthers still outshot the Nittany Lions 9-4 in the second half. They were only able to get one goal out of their efforts, as redshirt senior defender Bryce Washington made the score 3-1 in the 85th minute. Both sophomore defender Nyk Sessock and Dexter led the Panthers’ offensive effort with two shots each.

The player of the game was Shakes for Penn State, who recorded a career-high 10 saves in the game. His performance against a high-powered Pitt offense kept the game within Penn State’s reach and allowed it to take the lead and end up winning quite comfortably.

Next, Pitt will travel to Charlottesville on Friday to take on No. 1 Virginia in what will be a tough test for the Panthers.

LeBron James answered questions about the NBA’s current tension with China at a press conference on Monday. Image courtesy of @MillerKimball1 | twitter

Trent Leonard Sports Editor

Since Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted a quickly deleted image on Oct. 4 that read “Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong,” resulting in a Chinese backlash and blacklisting of the organization, the NBA has timidly tiptoed around the issue out of fear of losing further business overseas.

“I don’t know enough about the situation to comment” has become the go-to deflective statement for the league’s coaches and players — until Monday night.

To summarize, protesters in Hong Kong have clashed with police over a bill introduced last March that would have allowed for the extradition of criminal suspects in Hong Kong to mainland China, thus undermining the region’s already fragile autonomy. The concern was that China, which already oversees Hong Kong as a special administrative region, would use the legislation to prosecute and silence those seeking greater civil liber-

October 16, 2019

ties in Hong Kong. China’s brash reaction to Morey’s tweet exemplified the country’s heightened sensitivity toward the matter.

LeBron James — long considered one of the NBA’s foremost activists and outspoken voices on social issues — held an impromptu press conference ahead of the Los Angeles Lakers’ preseason game on Monday night.

For the first time since Morey’s tweet and the ensuing Chinese restrictions, he opened himself up to questions regarding the situation.

What followed was a stunning display of tone-deafness and lack of awareness from an individual typically praised for his hard-hitting sociopolitical commentary.

“Yes, we all have freedom of speech, but at times, there are ramifications for the negative that can happen when you’re not thinking about others and only thinking about yourself,” James said. “I don’t want to get into … a word feud with [Morey], but I believe he wasn’t educated about the situation at hand, and he spoke.”

See LeBron on page 7

6

LeBron, pg. 6 There are several levels of irony to unpack with this statement alone. For one, it’s ignorant for James to assume that Morey wasn’t educated on the Hong Kong protests when he decided to tweet the image. Per The Ringer, Morey was concerned about the safety of his friends in the city, as increasingly violent protests against the controversial proposed bill have taken place in the area since April.

Morey wasn’t thinking about himself — the issue was personal for him and involved concern for colleagues, something James didn’t seem to know before he chose to ridicule him.

In other words, James wasn’t educated about the situation at hand, and he spoke.

If anything, James comes out of this looking like the one thinking about only himself.

He issued a tweet shortly after the interview that tried to explain and backtrack upon his statements, but it only added fuel to the fire.

“My team and this league just went through a difficult week. I think people need to understand what a tweet or statement can do to others,” James said. “And I believe nobody stopped and considered what would happen. Could have waited a

pittnews.com

week to send it.”

The “difficult week” references the fact that James and his Laker teammates had to play a preseason game in China shortly after the Morey-China inciting incident, putting themselves in an admittedly awkward situation. The Chinese government censored the game entirely throughout its country, and afterward strong-armed the NBA into eliminating any media availability. It’s true that the whole conundrum put James in a stressful situation.

But again, it’s ironic that James’ primary concern is how his own life was temporarily inconvenienced by the social activism of another. Here you have an athlete who previously used his platform to brazenly pioneer countless causes in the past. He put his hoodie up to protest the unjust killing of Trayvon Martin in 2012. He once wore a pregame shirt that read “I can’t breathe,” in solidarity with those who protested the 2014 murder of Eric Garner by police. He was an outspoken supporter of Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling for the national anthem to protest police brutality.

In these cases, James wasted no time in rushing to the forefront to support such movements. But when someone else’s activ-

ism presents an inconvenience to his personal life — or an impediment to his bottom line — they apparently need to “wait a week” to voice their opinion.

Twitter users quickly dug up an old post from James that further exposed his hypocrisy in the matter.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” he tweeted on Martin Luther King Jr. Day in 2018. “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

It seems that by “anywhere,” James may have just meant “America.” Because the stance he established on Monday made it clear he’s just another cog in the Chinese censorship machine, too afraid to say anything the slightest bit negative about a foreign government that petulantly blacklisted an entire organization because of one tweet.

If James didn’t want to speak out against the Chinese government, that’s fine. He didn’t have to call the interview at all, or he could’ve just deflected the media’s questions with vague excuses like his peers.

Ideally, it would’ve been nice to see the face of the NBA and the league’s resident “Woke King” at least say something like, “I might not have all the facts, but it seems like

October 16, 2019

the Chinese government may have overreacted to the opinion of one individual. And I don’t have a problem with Morey’s motive in supporting those fighting for their individual rights.”

One would think that James, like Morey, might even support those protesting in Hong Kong. He knows a thing or two about the power of bills — just last month he invited California Governor Gavin Newsom on his HBO show “The Shop” to sign a landmark bill that will allow college athletes in California to profit off their own likeness for the first time starting in 2023. That bill was to liberate while the other was to oppress, but the point remains that James should have more in common with the Hong Kong protesters than the regime that they’re protesting against.

James could’ve used Monday night’s media session to add to his humanitarian resumé. Instead, he cast a pall over his image and motives, one that can only be removed after a formal apology which will likely come in the following weeks.

“Yes, we do have freedom of speech, but there can be a lot of negative that comes with that too,” James said.

He certainly found that out the hard way on Monday night.

7

I N D E X

Rentals & Sublet • NORTH OAKLAND • SOUTH OAKLAND • SHADYSIDE • SQUIRREL HILL • SOUTHSIDE • NORTHSIDE • BLOOMFIELD • ROOMMATES • OTHER

For Rent North Oakland Starting at $775.00.

Studio, 1 , and 2 bed­room. 3 Min walk to Pitt! 1, 2 and 4 bed­room units also avail­able in North Oak­land.

For more infor‑ mation call us at 412‑586‑7575 Stunning New 3BR, 2BA Townhouse.

Conveniently located near Pitt. Full kitchen including Stove& Re­frigerator. Garage. $2200/mo +utili‑ ties. 1yr. lease. Call 412‑505‑8531 for details.

South Oakland ***AUGUST 2020: Furnished studios, 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. No pets.

Non‑smokers pre­ ferred. 412‑621‑0457. **2,3,4, 5, and 6 Bed­room houses/ Apart­ments in South Oak­land. Available for rent August 2020.

Very clean with dif­ferent amenities (dishwasher, laun­ dry, A/C, washer

pittnews.com

Employment • CHILDCARE • FOOD SERVICES • UNIVERSITY • INTERNSHIPS • RESEARCH • VOLUNTEERING • OTHER

and dryer, 1‑3 baths, off‑street parking, newer ap­pliances & sofas). Check out my Face­book page: https:­//www. facebook.­com/ KenEckenrode­ RealEstate/. Call Ken at 412‑287‑4438 for more informa­tion and showings.

1‑6 bedroom. All newly renovated, air‑conditioning, dish­washer, washer/ dryer, and parking.

Most units on busline and close to Pitt.

Avail­able Summer 2020. 412‑915‑0856 or email klucca@veri­ zon.net.

2‑3‑4‑5‑6‑7 bedroom apartments and houses available in May and August 2020. Nice, clean, free laundry, in­ cludes exterior main‑ tenance, new appli‑ ances, spa­cious, and located on Semple, Oak­land Ave., Mey‑ ran Ave., Welsford, Bates, Dawson, and Mckee 412‑414‑9629. douridaboud­ propertymanage­ ment.com 3408 Parkview Ave. 2 BD for $950 & 3 BD for $1,295.

Available immedi­ ately. Pet Friendly & Parking. CALL

Classifieds

For sale

• AUTO • BIKES • BOOKS • MERCHANDISE • FURNITURE • REAL ESTATE • PETS

services

• EDUCATIONAL • TRAVEL • HEALTH • PARKING • INSURANCE

notices

• ADOPTION • EVENTS • LOST AND FOUND • STUDENT GROUPS • WANTED • OTHER

NOW! 412‑455‑5600

joinchoolaah.­com.

Before signing a lease, be aware that no more than 3 unre­lated people can share a single unit. Check property’s compliance with codes. Call City’s Per­mits, Licensing & In­spections.

412‑255‑2175.

COME JOIN US AT LA FERIA, PERU­ VIAN RESTAU­ RANT AND CRAFT SHOP. PART TIME RE­TAIL OR RESTAU­RANT WORK . NO EXPE‑ RIENCE NEC­ ESSARY. PLEASE APPLY IN PERSON. ABOVE PAMELAS RESTAURANT AT 5527 WALNUT STREET. 412 682 4501.

South Oakland Houses and Apart­ ments with Laundry and Central Air Call or Text 412‑38‑Lease Stay ahead of the housing search.

Rooms & 1‑4 bed­ rooms available from January, May, June, July, and August.

Call/Text Ron NOW at 412‑881‑1881 or email jarcon3@ya­ hoo.com. Reserve & Relax. Small deposit required.

R A T E S

Insertions

1-15 Words

16-30 Words

1X

2X

3X

4X

$6.30

$11.90

$17.30

$22.00

$7.50

$14.20

$20.00

$25.00

5X $27.00 $29.10

6X $30.20 $32.30

Add. + $5.00 + $5.40

(Each Additional Word: $0.10)

Deadline:

Two business days prior by 3pm | Email: advertising@pittnews.com | Phone: 412.648.7978

The Pitt News SuDoku 10/16/19 courtesy of dailysudoku.com

Part Time Banquet Servers needed at The Priory Hotel. Starting rate of $11 an hour. If interested please email zach@priory.com or call 412‑224‑6306.

Employment Employment Other CHOOLAAH restau­ rant located at 6114 Centre Ave is looking to hire Cooks and Cashiers to join our Team. Starting is $10.

A‑players can get to $12 in 6‑8 weeks.

Flexible Schedules for students. Please apply in person or on­line at

October 16, 2019

8