By Katya Olson Shipyatsky, Staff Writer

On November 18th an article entitled  “Privileged College Kids Don’t Understand Real Social Injustice”, written by Bryn Mawr alumna Christine Flowers, was published on Philly.com.The article was in reference to a student organized protest at the Lower Merion Police Department on Wednesday, November 16th which was in response to the chapter’s affiliation with the Fraternal Order of Police which, during the election, endorsed Donald Trump.

In the piece, Flowers expresses doubt whether students protesting in the Bi-Co have ever experienced what she calls “real prosecution.” She argued that the privileged Bi-Co student protesters have no grounds from which to draw parallels between the recent election of Donald Trump as president and historic beginnings of totalitarian regimes. Flowers stated that the “privileged Main Line kids,” should not draw those parallels on the grounds that they are offensive to victims of state-sponsored violence from authoritarian regimes.

Flowers is likely correct that none of us can know exactly what the impending Trump presidency will bring. Many of his proposed policies contradict not only existing government policies, but also with one another. However, her argument that Bi-Co students do not have reason to be fearful of what the next four years may bring and that student protesters are simply “looking for a political cause” is flawed, and oversimplified.  

Aside from Flowers’ incorrect assumption that students in the Bi-Co have never experienced real “fear, persecution, and horrors,” Flowers’ also argues that students are hastily comparing Trump’s rise to power to that of other dictatorial leaders. But what Flowers doesn’t realize is that such comparisons is entirely warranted. Confronted with Trump’s campaign platform of “law and order,” we are not wrong to draw parallels to the increases in police power that have historically come with the beginnings of authoritarian regimes.

Bombarded throughout the election season by the Trump campaign’s racist, sexist and xenophobic rhetoric, it is not irrational for Bi-Co students to compare Trump’s rise to power to that of authoritarian leaders. But it is not only Trump’s violent rhetoric that has students worried: Trump is also inheriting a Supreme Court that may need up to three seats filled in the next four years, and a majority Republican Congress. This unique combination of institutional power and violent rhetoric leaves us with legitimate grounds from which to draw parallels to the historic beginnings of dangerous, totalitarian regimes. In this sense, we are left with every reason to be fearful of what a Trump presidency will bring.

In light of this, we must look to history to guide us toward effective paths forward. The search for successful methods of resistance leads us to protest, hoping that those methods that have effectively resisted the rise of dictatorial regimes of the past can aid us in preventing them today.

Believing that Trump’s rhetoric combined with the power of the American presidency may be indicative of a shift in the direction of totalitarianism is not far-fetched or baseless, and our justified resistance to a rise of dangerous political ideology does not classify us as “rabble rousers looking for a political cause.” Indeed, the study of history is important for the very reason that it allows us to draw such parallels between events of past and current times with the aim of preventing repetitions of past atrocities.

We are right to be impacted by the parallels we see between Trump’s ascent to power and the rise of past totalitarian leaders. We are right to feel the need to resist. Protests like the one that provoked Flowers’ response are indicative not of a nation-wide trend of millennial oversensitivity, but a trend of historically justified political activism. The future remains frightening and deeply uncertain, but I hope that students of the Bi-Co will trust their inescapable sense that something has gone deeply wrong and continue to draw on historically effective forms of political resistance as we continue into and past January 20th.

Read Flowers’ article here: http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20161118_Flowers__Privileged_college_kids_don_t_understand_real_social_injustice.html

From the print edition published Dec. 7, 2016

By Kate Weiler, Staff Writer

It’s hard to deny that Wednesday, Nov. 9 was a memorable day. And now that almost a month has passed, the decisions made have already begun to build a foundation for the future of the United States. I will focus on three pillars of this foundation: women, wages, and weed.

Four states voted to legalize recreational marijuana on Nov. 8. Massachusetts voters said yes to Question 4, a bill to legalize the recreational use, possession, cultivation, and sale of marijuana starting on Dec. 15. And with California’s vote in favor of Proposition 64, which legalizes recreational marijuana for those over the age of 21, the entire West Coast of the U.S. has legalized recreational and medicinal marijuana use. As of 12:01 a.m. on Nov. 9, California residents are allowed to grow up to six plants in their homes, and recreational sales from shops will become legal on Jan. 1, 2018.

Nevada and Maine voted yes on their weed referenda as well. As of January 1, 2018, Nevada residents are legally allowed to possess up to one ounce of marijuana. While all four of these states are left-leaning, the decision made is significant for both their economies and their law enforcement policies.

Four states — Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and Washington — passed ballot measures that will raise the minimum wage significantly by the year 2020. Hourly workers in Arizona, Colorado, and Maine will see their wages rise to $12 an hour, gains of more than $3.75 per hour, and Washington’s minimum wage will rise to $13.50 by 2020, an increase of $4.03 an hour. In South Dakota, a referendum that would lower wages for workers under 18 years of age was defeated.

Several incredible women celebrated wins on October 8. Tucked into the surprise surrounding the loss of Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton were little glimmers of hope for women in politics, with several “firsts” as countless women were elected to various offices across the country.

Kamala Harris is the first black politician to represent California in the Senate, and the second black woman ever elected to the chamber. In Nevada, Catherine Cortez Masto became the first Latina ever elected to the Senate. The first Indian-American woman elected to Congress, Pramila Jayapal, won over Seattle’s seventh Congressional District in Washington. An immigrant, founder of advocacy group OneAmerica, and Washington State senator, Jayapal has been praised for her resilient progressivism.

Ilhan Omar is the first Somali American to be elected to State Legislature. A refugee who immigrated to the United States at when he was 12, Omar wishes to represent and protect the diverse people of her district, focusing in particular on the rights of immigrants and refugees who seek a better future in America.

In Illinois, Tammy Duckworth defeated Republican Senator Mark Kirk. A veteran of the Iraq war, in which she lost both her legs, Duckworth has promised to use her new power to address structural issues that have prevented veterans’ access to private doctors and to speak for soldiers who have previously been silenced about deployment and foreign policy.

Oregon’s Kate Brown, who took over the position of governor when her predecessor resigned this past year, has become the first openly LGBT person elected governor. She is an outspoken advocate for marginalized communities, including women, underprivileged youth, and the LGBTQ community.

The progress made by these election results, which support of the right to recreational marijuana, higher wages for workers, and women in power, should be recognized and appreciated across party lines. Despite the setbacks, things are changing for the better and will continue to change for the better, and that in and of itself is comforting. So, in this difficult time, remember the good things in life: you don’t have to go all the way to Colorado to light up.

From the print edition published Dec. 7, 2016

By Michael Schwarze, Business Manager

In the aftermath of the election, political polarization seems to be at an all-time high around the nation and even within the Bi-College community. Disagreement is important because it forces people to face viewpoints different from their own, but it sometimes dissolves into back-and-forth arguments where neither side is listening. In a time when engaging in healthy discussion is especially important, how can we work toward productive dialogue?

The first step is to realize that finding mutual understanding does not mean accepting bigotry, racism or other prejudices.

Take Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric, which was deeply rooted in such prejudices. Some have tried to play down the bias he has shown, but the implications could — in fact, have already proven to — be disastrous. Trump’s actions and claims should never become the norm, and it’s important to actively disavow many of his comments. But we simply won’t make progress if we don’t understand others’ perspective. Fortunately, the dialogue we need in order to make a framework for mutual understanding is not incompatible with the idea of holding true our own beliefs.  

For guidance, we look toward some of the Quaker ideas Haverford holds dear. Respect for all people, including those with different opinions, is central in Quaker thought. We can work toward tolerance of the opposite perspective in search of a greater understanding based on mutual respect. This doesn’t necessarily mean supporting that perspective; instead, it means trying to understand where it comes from and what values or concerns it reflects.

Quakers also place a heavy emphasis on reflection in times of disagreement. However, when beliefs are firmly held, as is often the case in politics, it can be hard to remain open to new ideas, and the result is both sides on the defensive with no one really listening. To fight this tendency, next time you step up to join a political discussion, listen to someone who disagrees with you and take the time to deliberate on the topic. Think their arguments through, try your best to understand their perspective, and look for mutual ground to build on.

College is a place for us to experience new things and challenge our perspectives. By doing so, we are able to grow in our understanding of our own beliefs. Disagreements do — and should — happen naturally in college and beyond, but they don’t have to be dead ends. With the right tools, the conversations stemming from disagreements can be productive. They allow us to better understand other viewpoints, and by extension we learn more about ourselves.

I (Michael) grew up in a conservative household, and though I still hold a number of conservative beliefs and am a co-head of the Haverford College Republicans, I have also developed a more liberal stance on several issues. Being a part of the Bi-Co has let me challenge my views and learn why others believe what they believe. I hope we can all make room for productive conversation that pushes toward a more comprehensive understanding of what shapes our beliefs.

Chloe Lindeman contributed to this article.

From the print edition published Dec. 7, 2016

By Veronica Walton, Staff Writer

One thing’s for sure: Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, inspired cheers, gasps and approving snaps from across the political spectrum during her first presidential debate with Donald Trump at Hofstra University on Monday night.  During the 90-minute-long discourse (which, at times, metamorphosed into an exchange of bitter philippics), Secretary Clinton laid out her vision for the future of America–even as she withstood 51 interruptions (yes, PBS NewsHour was counting) from her opponent.  

And Trump: a vacuous and nefarious magnate who has never held an elected office and, as it turns out, is grossly unqualified to do so in the first place, continued to mansplain about how he – and only he – will get “our jobs” back “from Mexico,” and how he would do a “tremendous job” at doing so.  But, unlike previous times Trump has taken the political stage, Monday night’s debate left him a stammering, sniffling ball of fragile masculinity.

Despite these staggering attacks, linton remained poised and self-assured.  Determined and well-read on what she referred to as “the facts,” she spoke of how she would encourage policy that would aid economic growth, benefit the middle and lower classes, combat systemic racism and sexism and maximize national security.  She spoke of how she would “make investments where we can grow the economy” and how she “didn’t buy” into trickle-down economics and Trump’s plans to run the nation like a (white nationalist) business tycoon.  

Many conservative politicians, especially those who support Trump, such as senior Trump adviser Sarah Huckabee Sanders, complained that they did not believe the debate was fair, and that moderator Lester Holt did not ask Clinton about her array of scandals.  Sanders remarked, “What I thought wasn’t fair was that we didn’t get to talk about the Clinton Foundation. We didn’t talk about Benghazi. We didn’t talk about the email scandal. We got to talk about all the attacks that Hillary’s camp has made on Donald Trump and pretty much ignored most of the big attacks that have been hit on Hillary over the last several weeks.”

Why did Holt ignore them?  Lester ignored these scandals because, although there is an element of understandable wariness around Clinton’s alleged misconduct, Trump’s plans to build xenophobic walls, his sexist attitudes towards beauty pageant contestants, his indistinct and slapdash plans for the economy and his refusal to release the records of his tax returns have not been highlighted nearly enough by the mainstream, nonpartisan media.  Clinton is constantly held to higher moral standards than Trump is simply because she is a woman.  During her time as First Lady, Clinton was criticized for not reflecting the idealized image of a national hostess; she advocated for progressive social and health care reform.  She actually had a political agenda, and an unprecedented one at that.  Somehow, these hostile attitudes towards her assertiveness and audaciousness, which were at one time discussed only between neoconservative commentators, have seeped into our common cultural consciousness.  Even Trump claimed he had a better temperament than Clinton during the debate, although he is the one who interrupted her 51 times.  This too (rather unsurprisingly) reflects sexist postures.

While some argue that Clinton’s email it rendered her untrustworthy or that her actions were inappropriate, it’s not what we should be calling a “real issue.”  A president who sees women solely as sexual objects, tells P.O.C. in low-income communities that they have “nothing to lose,” and can do little more than talk about the “small loan” he inherited from his father and his subsequent personal success and mogul-ism, poses a tangible threat to the stability of the United States.  Trump’s misadventures, abuses, exploitations, and invectives have too long gone excused.  In other words, it’s time to hold him accountable.

The debate marked a high point in Clinton’s career as a presidential candidate.  She beat back interminably against Trump’s condemnations and stood proudly in the face of a skeptical nation.  She proved that, despite the fact that her her presidency will weather all manners of internalized sexism, anti-establishment rhetoric and cynical media attacks, she is indeed fit to sit in the Oval Office.

From the print edition published Oct. 5, 2016