42 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(03/24/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A Huffington Post article drew me in with the headline, “How racist is marijuana prohibition in your state?”And apparently for Indiana, it’s pretty racist.In fact, pretty much the entire country is. The American Civil Liberties Union has released a new tool that lets users see how race is tied to marijuana arrests throughout the country.In Indiana, for example, someone is arrested every .68 hours for having marijuana, and black people are 3.39 times more likely to be arrested than white people, according to data from a 2010 ACLU report.The fact is, black people are not more likely to smoke pot than white people, and yet they are almost four times more likely to be arrested for it in the United States as a whole. Weed legalization buzz has grown rapidly. Though we often think of legalized marijuana supporters as dreadlocked hippies, there is a more compelling argument to legalize weed.With the way the system currently stands, we are essentially funding racial profiling.The racial problem with marijuana is just one example of racial disparities within our criminal justice system. Nobody seems to be talking about the fact that our image of a criminal is almost always a black man, the guy we think is “creepy” or “suspicious” is black. Out of the 2.3 million incarcerated in the United States today, one million of them are black. Though many are apt to point fingers at the “cultural problem” of the inner-city and the black population — looking at you, Paul Ryan — that excuse attempts to place our country’s race problem in the abstract rather than taking personal responsibility and acknowledging our stereotypes and our own cultural problem. There are racial disparities with every type of drug sentencing. Overall, five times as many white people use drugs as black people, but blacks are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of whites. No one sat me down and told me not to trust black people when I was a child, but I still grew up believing that I should be more wary if a black stranger approached me than if a white one did. I grew up qualifying my statements, where “a big black guy” carried more significance than “a big white guy.” Our race problem is everywhere. It’s in our local law enforcement, our entire court system and within our social fabric — a stubborn stain we can’t get rid of and which we have stopped scrubbing. The racial disparities in marijuana arrests are indicative of the problems of law enforcement and society as a whole. When black people receive the brunt of punishment for a crime that whites commit just as often, it is clear that unbiased judgment gives way to racial profiling. Marijuana legalization isn’t likely to cure our racial tensions. But it would save Indiana millions of dollars and ensure that our criminal justice system is not so blatantly racist. And if you’re not from Indiana, just check out how blatantly racist your home state is. cjellert@indiana.edu @cjellert
(03/10/14 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>When I was little, I complained to my parents that since there was a Father’s Day and a Mother’s Day, there should be a Kid’s Day, too. My mother rolled her eyes and told me that every day was Kid’s Day. This past Saturday, March 8, was International Women’s Day, a day supporting women’s advancements in business, politics and access to education worldwide, as well as violence against women. As long as these gaps exist between men and women, we should be fighting every day. Just as every day should be Kid’s Day, every day should be Women’s Day, too.And so it’s time to talk about the F word — feminism, that is. Here in the United States, we may pride ourselves on being “past” feminism, but the fact is women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, despite that the Equal Pay Act has been around since 1963. Women are still subjected to unrealistic physical expectations and double standards. And yet, feminism is still a dirty word.The negative connotations make men and women unwilling to call themselves feminists. For many women, they think it makes them seem unfeminine. For a lot of guys, calling themselves feminists is just a good pick-up line that fails to translate into real life.Some on the Indiana Daily Student Editorial Board, on the other hand, are openly feminist. My fellow columnists and I frequently write about women’s issues today, and for some reason, I’m always surprised at the backlash we get saying that our crazy feminist views are not valid. In addition to the global problems facing women as a whole, women have gender issues staring us in the face every day. When everything marketed to us is pink. When I’m reminded that we still haven’t had a female president. Whenever I get catcalled walking down Kirkwood in basketball shorts and a hoodie. Something is still wrong. I could go into so many instances in which women are stereotyped or marginalized within the media, the workplace and our everyday lives. But for now, all I really want is to have people use the F word again. I wonder why more people don’t call themselves feminists, and then I remember that the over-emotional, touchy connotations the word “feminism” holds are the same stereotypes frequently applied to women. I’m sick of the argument that efforts to bring women up somehow brings men down. I’m sick of the reputation that a woman being passionate about something is a woman being angry and overly sensitive. For any feminist doubters, male or female, just do some research and think about the number of women in power positions not because of lack of skill, but lack of opportunity. Look at the wage gap. Consider the hyper-specific beauty expectations a girl grows up with. I am immensely grateful for the women before me who have paved the way for me to vote, for instance, or to receive the same education as my male classmates. But the way still needs paving. Keep conversations about feminist issues alive. Because feminism is not a dirty word.cjellert@indiana.edu @cjellert
(03/03/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It might just be me, but my Facebook and Twitter news feeds have been blowing up lately with Buzzfeed articles. Buzzfeed is what print journalists hate about the digital age. It’s what undergraduates hate and love about the Internet. It makes a short Facebook break turn into endless scrolling and clicking on meaningless articles and taking quizzes to find out which member of the Beatles you are — I’m Paul McCartney circa ’1969, for the record. Buzzfeed is designed for procrastination. Its specific formula to attract 20-somethings includes promoting everything that’s weird, funny or worth sharing through an easily accessible format, often through lists.Of course, many of these posts are not meant to be taken seriously. They’re distractions from your studies, mostly, or something to look at while pretending to take notes in lectures. And yet Buzzfeed may become one of the most significant pieces of media for our generation. Today, Buzzfeed is one of the top 10 most-visited news and information sites in the U.S. They must be doing something right.You could call Buzzfeed the lazy man’s media. The font is extra large, perfect for speedy viewing. Half of every page is dominated by a photograph or GIF, in case you want to look at pictures instead of words. One way to look at Buzzfeed is as another mindless Internet tool — another facet of the Web that requires very little concentration. It’s perfect for the entitled and self-absorbed millennials. Surprisingly, the editor-in-chief of Buzzfeed is Ben Smith, a former reporter for Politico, a well-respected political news site. Maybe it’s because I initially imagined Buzzfeed’s editor-in-chief as a secluded Tumblr-enthusiast, but knowing this helps me see a broader picture of what Buzzfeed actually does, or at least what it can do. The truth is, I can speak for most college students when I say we have high demands for society. Maybe we do want it all. We want any media we consume to be fast, informative and entertaining all at once. We want our media to sing and dance and have snappy graphics. It’s just the way we are. Buzzfeed does publish legitimate news stories, believe it or not. And that doesn’t necessarily have to be disputed just because Buzzfeed also has high traffic for its articles on puppies, for example, or the “Which member of One Direction are you?” quiz.Honestly, the articles are addicting. Once you click one a friend shared on a Facebook post, you click another. Then another. And then another. I’m not necessarily saying Buzzfeed is a serious news source — yet. But I think it can use its rising readership, click-bait headlines and distinctive article formula in a different context. Buzzfeed can still have its cutesy blog posts, but it can further emphasize its role as a news source, too. If we’re procrastinating in class on Buzzfeed, we might as well be learning something about the world at the same time. cjellert@indiana.edu@cjellert
(02/24/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I won’t stop talking about “House of Cards,” because it’s just that good.It has drama. Suspense. Tension. Politics. Kevin Spacey delivering creepy monologues directly at the camera. Everything you could possibly want from a show. Washington, D.C., is the perfect backdrop for a show about power and corruption. Spacey plays a believable character. If there exists a man as power-hungry and ruthless as Congressman Frank Underwood, he’d be in D.C. What we watch on TV at a particular moment of time tells us something about our society, and what it’s telling us now is that Americans hate Congress.The public approval rating of Congress stands at 12 percent. Last October, the approval rating was in the single digits. The number of people who support Congress at the moment is probably about the same as the number of people who still like Justin Bieber. Not coincidentally, there are currently eight big-budget TV shows set in D.C., five of which are present-day dramas.Although few viewers — myself included — are gullible enough to accept a fictional story as fact, these political shows are gaining popularity. We don’t necessarily believe that it does happen, but that it could happen.And that’s because it’s not too far off from our actual government, or at least how we perceive it. We wouldn’t want to drop everything and binge-watch 13 episodes if the idea of a corrupt and merciless government wasn’t believable. Contrast the devious “House of Cards” with another successful political drama, “The West Wing,” which ran from 1999-2006.Rather than the Frank Underwood that just committed murder/manipulated the President/was scheming this entire time moments that define “House of Cards,” “The West Wing” is a pretty jolly show. White House staffers order Chinese late at night and banter with the president, and international incidents are solved with frank conversations.“The West Wing” was wildly popular during an incredibly different political climate, pre-Sept. 11 and pre-recession.Now, we as television viewers can no longer believe in an honest politician. The concept is an oxymoron. According to some insiders, “House of Cards” is not that far off from present-day reality. One of the biggest inaccuracies noted was that an education bill could not be passed as quickly as it is on the show. It’s just a minor detail, considering that a U.S. congressman commits murder in the first season.Regardless, the show’s overall implications — that government is corrupt, and politicians care more about power than constituents — reflect how we as a nation feel about current politics. It’s not a good feeling.“House of Cards” does not have to be completely realistic to demonstrate that Americans are more likely to see today’s politicians as the bad guys.And the scary part is that if a real Frank Underwood exists, you’re probably not going to find out about it. He is a master at covering his tracks. — cjellert@indiana.eduFollow columnist Caroline Ellert on Twitter @cjellert
(02/17/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Goldman Sachs is surprisingly not leading the fight against gender stereotypes in the workplace. The bank promoted itself to Harvard’s Women of Computer Science club with swag items chosen to appeal to women — nail files and makeup mirrors. Because, you know, chicks dig that stuff. Not surprisingly, this company has a whopping two women on its 12 person board and three female executives out of 30 on its management committee. So while handing girly favors — or gender stereotypes — is clearly a commendable attempt to recruit more women, Goldman missed the mark. The fact that there are no “Men in Computer Science” clubs is not reverse-sexism. The reason such a club cannot exist is because men have never been thought less capable because of their gender. There has never been a reason to create an exclusive club for a group who are traditionally the excluders. The boys club of Goldman Sachs, which has been called “a frat on steroids,” is no different. One of the reasons women are excluded is precisely because the gender stereotypes a nail file and makeup mirror represent are both impossible to live up to and distracting from what women can really achieve. A former female Goldman employee claimed that a memo once replaced corporate headshots of women with pictures of half-naked Playboy playmates. Amusing. The problem with handing out nail files and mirrors as a way to promote your company to women is it’s a reminder of the way many men view their female coworkers. It’s not quite as bad today as the Playboy incident, which happened in the ‘90s. Now things are slightly different, but sexual objectification of women still has its grip on society. Women obviously face much more physical scrutiny than men. The problem here, though, is not necessarily the crushing standards of beauty for women, but how degrading it is to have your appearance constantly referenced over your abilities. It’s an insult to the effect women actually have on the world — an effect that is not just aesthetic. Goldman has surely done worse things to discriminate against women, and their attempt to appeal to women is commendable, even if the execution was poor. Kudos to Goldman for trying to improve their male to female ratio, but they would have sent a better message with a more gender-neutral item for these smart, high-achieving women. A pen, for example, which is just as functional for a woman as it is for a man. Harvard’s Women of Computer Science can achieve much more than looking pretty, a fairly useless talent. It was a nice attempt, Goldman Sachs. Just remember there’s more to being a woman than filing our nails and wearing mascara. cjellert@indiana.eduFollow Columnist Caroline Ellert on Twitter @cjellert
(02/10/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It’s possible to be pro-gay rights and also pro-Sochi 2014.Many members of the LGBT community and gay rights supporters have called for a boycott against watching the winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia.Russian President Vladimir Putin has graciously said that gays, including those on the U.S. Olympic team, are welcome in Sochi — as long as they “leave the kids alone,” because he equates homosexuals to pedophiles.Many media outlets are also reporting a surge of homophobic acts of violence against gay people. Research from the organization Human Rights Watch has found that the current political climate in Russia “expose(s) LGBT people to further harassment and violence and embolden(s) the attackers.”An authoritative statement against the gay community gives homophobes incentive to take their hatred to the next step. The problem with a Sochi boycott in protest of Russia’s anti-gay stance is that it actually does little to promote gay rights. The people who are punished the most are the athletes.President Barack Obama, along with other Western political leaders, declined to attend Friday’s Opening Ceremony.Furthermore, he chose a U.S. delegation that includes three openly gay athletes. These strategies are more symbolic than anything else, but they make quite a big statement — the U.S. government does not support such blatant homophobic views.The advantage of this symbolic, pro-gay rights message is that it gets the point across without hurting the athletes.I do not understand, however, the idea of American viewers boycotting their televisions.I support the right of the LGBT community to refrain from watching the games if they find Russia’s current political climate to ruin the experience for them. But Olympic athletes don’t just benefit from being at the games. They benefit from the millions of viewers.The athletes signed up to be on one of the biggest international stages in sports, and they should receive that.It also seems counter-intuitive to deprive gay athletes of their right to the recognition they would have gotten at any other Olympics.They should not have to sacrifice any part of their experience because of Putin’s bigotry.If we blame an ugly piece of legislation on the athletes, we are allowing it to disrupt the experience gay and straight athletes have dreamed about. Obama’s snub of the games was a big enough move politically to already make a statement against Putin and his administration. At this point, personal refusal to watch the Olympics doesn’t do much except deny athletes the recognition they deserve. There is a time for boycotts and protests against homophobia.The Olympics are not that time. — cjellert@indiana.eduFollow columnist Caroline Ellert on Twitter @cjellert.
(02/03/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A salon.com writer spent a month using Fox News as his primary news source when reporting. Or, as he put it, “My personal Fox News nightmare: Inside a month of self-induced torture.” Even if you’re one of the many Americans who uses Facebook to receive news, most of us could spend a few minutes watching any Fox News program and immediately be able to identify its political alignment. If you’re conservative, Fox News is gold. If you’re a liberal, like the author of the article, it’s “torture.” I don’t understand how “news” has become so clearly biased.Fox News is an easy target. I almost feel cheap bringing it up. The only people who would argue with me are the people who regularly consume Fox News as a real news source and, of course, the people at Fox News. Fox News makes me cringe. I don’t agree with their views, and much of the content just makes me angry. For example, the hosts of “Fox and Friends” say ridiculous things. In a guest interview they said feminism demonizes men and therefore somehow affects our national security.The fact checkers are still trying to figure that one out. And I can’t help but see links to these stories. Admittedly, Twitter does tend to pick out the stupidest, most Saturday Night Live-worthy clips for me. It’s interesting because I’m actually in a similar position to those at Fox News. As a columnist, I’m basically allowed to write what I want. I will openly confess that I can be just as biased as Fox News anchors. There’s a reason, though, that articles such as this are published with “Opinion” written at the top. Our arguments are supposed to be supported by legitimate facts, not Fox News-style ones. But they are still our biased opinions on everything from politics to pop culture, which we will readily admit.Too bad Fox News doesn’t. Maybe the difference is the clear distinction between news and editorials in publications such as the Indiana Daily Student. Fox News blurs those lines. I suppose you can learn something about the world, but mostly you’ll have to suffer through listening to a bunch of white men and blonde women talk about how President Barack Obama is a socialist.They may have facts, but only the facts that support their agenda — facts that do not support this can be easily omitted. It’s probably the same things readers do with opinion columns. Before I wrote here myself, I tended to follow the columnists whose views were most aligned with mine.I wasn’t altogether interested in hearing a different take on something, but I am now, because I know that my fellow columnists are intelligent writers who will not make baseless arguments. We may have biases, but that is why we encourage people who disagree to email us, follow us on Twitter, or write a letter to the editor. We don’t write these columns to force you to agree with us. We write them to make you think. Hopefully, the biggest difference between IDS Opinion and Fox News is that reading this column was slightly better than “self-induced torture.”— cjellert@indiana.eduFollow columnist Caroline Ellert on Twitter @cjellert.
(01/27/14 5:22am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Many times when I try to throw away some of my food, I’m reminded, of course, that there are starving children in third-world countries. Those words convince me to clean my plate even when I’m full, and it makes me feel guilty for throwing something away because I don’t like the taste. We can say we’re “dying” of hunger or “starving” with the privilege of not actually knowing how that feels. For most of us, not having anything to eat just means there is nothing we want to eat. But we can never forget that not only are there starving children in developing countries, there are starving children all over the world — including the United States. About 50 million people in the U.S. don’t always have access to the food they need to lead healthy lives. Seventeen million of them are children. The top two cities with the largest number of children living in “food insecure households” are New York City and Los Angeles, two cities that are typically portrayed in the media as glamorous and opulent, crowded with celebrities and influential people. But hunger doesn’t get any better when you are surrounded by significant amounts of wealth. The U.S. has traditionally been the poster child for prosperity, making it even more remarkable that some can have so much while others have so little only a few miles or even feet away. Believing that hunger, poverty and suffering exist solely in third-world countries is inaccurate. Views on poverty in the U.S., however, are also often inaccurate. Clouded by welfare politics and general bias, most Americans do not think of hunger as a prevalent issue in the U.S.Perhaps that’s why it is easier to categorize hunger as an third-world problem. Additionally, developing countries seem far enough away, both geographically and culturally, that we can pretend eating the rest of our sandwich actually helps a starving child. Though I believe no one should have to go without basic needs such as food, water and shelter, the idea of children going hungry is even more heart-wrenching. I’m not sure who can argue against providing proper nourishment for our children who haven’t had a chance to be blamed for their situation. What is more, studies show that even if true hunger is only experienced for a short period during childhood, the negative outcomes extend far into adulthood, including early-onset diabetes, high blood pressure, stunted intellectual growth and obesity. In a nation that is supposed to give equal opportunity, the fact that so many children have to grow up with food insecurity is inherently unfair. Those children are at a distinct disadvantage compared to their peers, who are privileged enough to worry about their grades, friends and school — not where their next meal is coming from. Although we should always think about how people around the world are suffering, we should not let that cloud our views of those suffering right beside us. — cjellert@indiana.eduFollow columnist Caroline Ellert on Twitter @cjellert.
(01/24/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>With a Purdue University alumnus father and a sister attending Purdue, I always thought that if I went to a Big Ten school in my home state, it would be Purdue.Ultimately I saw IU was a better fit for me. As my parents prepared to buy a “House Divided” bumper sticker, I prepared for the range of responses — I was either making the best decision of my life, or the worst. In Indiana, you’re either a Hoosier or a Boilermaker. Never both.But I’m exaggerating somewhat. For most people, it’s just a sports rivalry. My Boilermaker dad is completely behind IU as an academic institution. Just not the football team. My sister was in class at the time of Tuesday’s shooting, although thankfully she was safe at home by the time I heard about it. I went to my own class right after hearing the news, wondering why no one else seemed upset. To me, it was as if it happened next door, which, in a sense, it did. IU and Purdue have one of the fiercest sports rivalries probably because we’re so similar. Aside from geographic proximity, we both have large numbers of alumni and students who passionately love their school. There’s the brick vs. limestone debate, engineering vs. liberal arts. But in the end, the loyal and prideful cultures of IU and Purdue are the same, and so is the instinct to defend that which we love. I love my school. I love the trees in the fall, the cream and crimson scarves on snowy days, the nosebleed seats in Assembly Hall. IU has become home for me, as Purdue has for my sister. So I can imagine how a campus shooting would feel — like someone invading your home. The idea of day-to-day safety being threatened in a place that usually provides comfort and security gave me chills as I sat in my own class mere hours after the shooting. I’ve heard rumors on Twitter of IU students and other schools using the shooting as some disgusting extension of our sports rivalry, failing to give proper respect to a tragedy that transcends sports.But I’m not paying attention to those. The concept is so ridiculous that it doesn’t even merit an argument. Purdue has suffered an unspeakable tragedy that could have just as easily happened here. We are connected to every school shooting victim in some way, but even more so to victim Andrew Boldt. My loyalty to IU is not threatened in the least by solidarity with a student body that feels the exact same way about its school that I do about mine. And so I have no problem giving a big #BoilerUp to our neighbors and friends at Purdue.— cjellert@indiana.eduFollow columnist Caroline Ellert on Twitter @cjellert.
(01/15/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Sunday’s Golden Globe Awards was just another celebrity-filled, action-packed evening to find out who wore what, and who should have just stayed home.Oh yeah, and there was some stuff about movies and television, and some awards for those things. Something like that.I wouldn’t know, having not seen the actual show but only catching the action after the fact on Twitter and EOnline. Jennifer Lawrence’s dress kind of looked like a white comforter with black bands around it. It cost about $1 billion, but I could probably make one at home.So the Twitter-verse did just that, posting their own weirdly accurate versions of her dress — less haute couture and made from actual comforters. It might be all in good fun, but what’s ironic is that Lawrence actually called out the mainstream media in a December interview with ABC for making “humiliating people funny.” The media should take responsibility, she said, for how it affects especially younger viewers, who are “picking up how to talk and how to be cool.” The media can have a detrimental effect on younger generations especially.A recent IU research study suggests the reality shows “Teen Mom 2” and “16 and Pregnant” caused viewers to be more likely to believe teen mothers have an enviable quality of life. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, most teen mothers are overworked, lacking support and exhausted. They don’t have the paychecks girls receive on the show, either. By consuming media, we are also often told what to think. Teenagers can be made to think that maybe it’s not such a bad idea after all to have a baby in high school. Our generation grew up with “American Idol” and every other reality show that gloats in other people’s misery. We were spectators to the bully on the playground, and what’s more, we were entertained. Celebrity gossip has also become such a significant part of our culture, especially through social media. Jennifer Lawrence had what some would call a fashion faux-pas, and it practically took over Twitter. I’m saying who cares if you thought she looked bad? Maybe it’s our supposedly narcissistic generation. Nothing boosts your confidence like making fun of someone wearing a dress worth your college tuition. But we aren’t living the movie “Mean Girls.” The mean girl is not always the one whose dad invented toaster streudel. Sometimes the mean girl is actually a 40-year-old man blogging on Golden Globes fashion in his pajamas.It’s not a crime to notice certain comforter-like qualities of someone’s dress. But I believe that when ridiculing someone else dominates so much of our daily conversation — even a celebrity, someone remote from our day-to-day lives — it just fosters cruel thoughts and actions toward other people. — cjellert@indiana.eduFollow columnist Caroline Ellert on Twitter @cjellert.
(12/12/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>On Tuesday, the IDS ran a story called “Edge of Poverty,” written by Matthew Glowicki. The story follows Cassie Winders, an Elletsville single mother living on food stamps. The article should be required reading for all IU students.According to the article, “17.5 percent of residents in Monroe county are ‘food insecure,’ meaning they lack consistent access to sufficient amounts of healthy food.” The issue of poverty in our city and on a national level is not a political issue, but an issue of human rights. In the article, when Winders and her children ran out of food stamp funds and could not buy toilet paper, they used coffee filters instead. It’s easy for us to ignore what is hard to understand. As students, we have warm beds and a bounty of meal points. We have basic supplies. We have toilet paper.A blog post titled “This is Why Poor People’s Bad Decisions Make Perfect Sense” recently went viral, stimulating a discussion on poverty. Author Linda Tirado explains the psychologically crippling aspects of poverty, a subject often overlooked.Like Glowicki’s article also emphasized, being poor is a cycle that is difficult to break. Poverty isn’t something you just bounce back from. The poor cannot simply “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” if they have no bootstraps to hold onto. Many people will read this article as well as Tirado’s blog post, feel sad for a minute, and then toss it aside.Poverty is a complicated issue with more elements than I dare take on in a single column. But the first step to fighting poverty is understanding the psyche of the poor. We pass the homeless men and women on Kirkwood and avert our gazes.It is easier to assume the likes of drug addiction, or that the poor and homeless brought their situation upon themselves. Almost always, we assume poverty is that person’s own fault. Personal decisions do come into play, but we need to stop generalizing the poor and understand that they come from many different backgrounds and circumstances. Letting what we might call “freeloaders” speak for the entire group is irresponsible and unfair. Researchers at Princeton, Harvard, and the University of Warwick have found that the mental load of poverty, having to think about financial troubles on a daily basis, is equivalent to losing an entire night’s sleep. Basically, the mental energy the poor must spend thinking about their situation makes it climbing out of the hole of poverty almost impossible. Economic inequality is an issue that has been overlooked for far too long. It is an issue that affects our country, but also people we pass by every day. We need to address basic needs such as food and shelter, but also psychological comfort. The poor are simply not afforded the same mental freedom the financially secure take for granted. We need to provide the poor with the bootstraps to give them the mental freedom necessary to succeed.It is only then that we can break the cycle.— cjellert@indiana.eduFollow columnist Caroline Ellert on Twitter @cjellert.
(12/10/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It has been 32 years since the first case of AIDS was reported. We’ve known about it for 32 years, and yet “AIDS,” a medical condition, is still a dirty word. Former Indiana high school athlete Michael Johnson is in jail for having exposed at least five sexual partners to HIV. He did not tell them he was infected. This is no doubt a crime. He knowingly put others’ lives at risk.But we must look at the root of the problem — a persisting stigma toward AIDS. Historically, Indiana has not been open to discussing sex. Though HIV/AIDS sex education is required in our schools, it exists in the framework of all Indiana sex education: don’t have sex until marriage.A sentiment that isn’t very helpful for men like Johnson, who are legally barred in states like Indiana and Missouri from marrying the men they have sex with.People have been hiding AIDS since the 1980s, in part due to its association with homosexuality.One member of the Editorial Board noted that in a human sexuality class at IU not one student was willing to take a free HIV test.There was no reason not to, she said, but even in 2013, HIV is still considered something to be ashamed of. If Johnson had grown up with more open AIDS discussions, he perhaps would have sought out support groups to help him deal with his disease.Counseling could have helped him learn how to address his condition with sexual partners.While we cannot speak to Johnson’s intent in refusing to inform his sexual partners of his HIV-postive status, you have to take into consideration that it may have less to do with malicious intent and more to do with the overwhelming sense of secrecy in AIDS patients. When Johnson won the Indiana High School Athletic Association wrestling title in 2010, he told the Indianapolis Star, “I had so many people rooting for me.” It is doubtful that today’s society would have rooted for the same man with HIV. Johnson’s actions shouldn’t be excused since he knowingly put at least five men at risk for an incurable disease.But in order to prevent future secrecy in HIV/AIDS patients, we must be more aware of our biases.We must end the stigma to ensure that Johnson and his victims get the physical and psychological help they need. — cjellert@indiana.eduFollow columnist Caroline Ellert on Twitter @cjellert.
(11/07/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Kerry Washington, the Emmy-nominated star of ABC’s hit drama “Scandal,” was host to last weekend’s “Saturday Night Live,” and the cold open came with an ironic, joking apology to Washington for “the number of black women she will be asked to play tonight.” Because SNL does not currently have a black female cast member, Washington was the only option to play two prominent black women in today’s media — Michelle Obama and Oprah. It was typical SNL — a smart way to address the elephant in the room by mocking themselves while dodging the issue.It’s the typical style for a show that freely mocks politicians and society for entertainment purposes.SNL needs to take responsibility for its appalling lack of diversity. Making a television show solely responsible for changing the cultural standards of society is foolish because it lets the actual leaders of our society off the hook.But SNL has not had a black female cast member since 2007, and this needs to change.Almost every week, SNL provides a humorous interpretation of recent events — from bizarre news stories to celebrity scandals to whatever is or isn’t happening in Washington, D.C.Contemporary society is the subject, and it is hypocritical not to reflect modern times.It de-legitimizes the great work the show does for comedic commentary. Then there are the mere logistics of it. Black public figures have instead had to be impersonated by male cast member Kenan Thompson, notable for his roles in “Kenan & Kel,” “All That,” and “Good Burger.”At least he’s black, so we’re halfway there.Thompson has since refused to perform in drag.So maybe we should get an actual woman to play these parts.According to the show, Obama has not had a wife throughout most of his presidency.We have to pretend that someone other than Oprah does all the hard-hitting celebrity interviews these days.SNL is a show that represents current topics, yet it is unable to provide accurate impersonations of some of the most influential women in today’s world. SNL has had four black female cast members — four in 38 years on a show that continually points out the absurdity of society.And I don’t buy the “We haven’t found any funny black women in the past six years, and only four in the past 38” argument.Try harder.The writers apparently know their own cast diversity situation is worthy of an SNL-type spoof, so that is exactly what they did in Saturday’s episode. But spoofing their own show’s problems is not enough.It does not mean they can shirk responsibility on an issue that, unlike political problems or stupid celebrities, they can directly influence. For one of the most culturally iconic shows on television, SNL needs to do better.It needs to have more than one week with a black female host.It needs to have a permanent black female cast member.If SNL is supposed to react to contemporary society, then it needs to get with it. Hire a black woman. And do it now.— cjellert@indiana.eduFollow columnist Caroline Ellert on Twitter @cjellert.
(10/30/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>America has a problem, and it’s stupid.According to a recent report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, American adults’ literacy skills are below the international average, trailing 12 other countries. This is nothing new. We’re aware of it. We joke about it. We do little about it. More interestingly, the report noted “individuals who score at lower levels of proficiency in literacy are more likely than those with higher proficiency to ... believe that they have little impact on the political process.” As an English major, I realize the connection between a strong society and a society that reads. Literacy fosters creativity and advance argumentative, communicative and analytical skills. These skills can be used to solve problems — namely, government problems, a government that a measly 19 percent of Americans say they trust. Government shutdown jokes and a general “Thanks, Obama” attitude pervade this country. We have a lot of distrust toward the only people we think can solve them. I have a solution, and it comes in the form of a nice, big book. Reducing stories to mere escapes from reality or nonfiction to the boring alternative to watching TV completely misses the point. Reading is more than fairy stories and picture books. It doesn’t have to be a dense political biography or anything directly related to global change. Reading anything, except just your Twitter feed, enhances focus and concentration, sharpening intelligence. The skills obtained from reading are useful to every policy-maker in Washington. I want to know that all members of Congress are reading books right now. A Senate literary reference other than Dr. Seuss would reassure me that our Senators have read books since they were five. More importantly, reading provides a valuable weapon to us, the common citizen. The OECD report suggests less literacy proficiency means you are less likely to vote. I would go so far as to say individuals who read more will be more productive members of society in all matters. A literate society is an intelligent one, one that knows how to harness analytical skills to create solutions. If you’re part of the 81 percent of Americans who distrust government, there is something you can do. Read more. Think more. Learn more about the people you vote for, and research the multiple sides to issues and the ways in which you can affect change yourself. Complaining about elected officials only gets us so far, and at some point we need to do something ourselves about the issues that matter to us. If there’s any power in the people, it’s with an educated people. So while you’re complaining about the ineffectiveness of government, pick up a book — that way you will actually be able to do something about it. — cjellert@indiana.eduFollow columnist Caroline Ellert on Twitter @cjellert.
(10/10/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The average college guy has this weird idea of feminists that involves unshaved legs, burning bras and a general refusal to wear anything remotely feminine. It also calls to mind an angry woman.It’s true that men often misjudge passion in feminists as anger. Some men don’t understand this passion because they haven’t experienced the sexism and feminist issues women complain about. Or, so they think. What men don’t get about feminism — the way I view feminism — is that women are not hoping to escape social oppression by begging to be recognized in Manland. As if Manland is the greatest thing we can strive for, and feminism is about fighting the dudes who won’t let us into their guys’ club. Actually, I don’t want to live in Manland. It doesn’t seem very fun there, either. The social standards put on women aren’t just unfair for women. Gender stereotypes also apply to men. A football player would likely not give up his career for a life in the ballet. He would be ridiculed by being called a girl, which for some reason has become an insult. A little boy can’t pick pink as his favorite color. Men can’t be stay-at-home dads without someone wondering what is wrong with them. A frat guy can’t be open about his rom-com obsession.Men and women have to meet somewhere in the middle to combat gender stereotypes on both sides.Men shouldn’t be content in a Manland where they are also judged, albeit in different ways and arguably to a lesser degree. Please don’t call feminists angry. We are passionate about this issue because it’s been there since the day we were born and put into a pink onesie.It’s been there since the very first books we read. Incidentally, even today only 31 percent of children’s books have female protagonists.The general perception is that the ideal hero, society’s highest ideal of what a person should be, takes the form of a man. My hope for the world of feminism is to change the way we view societal progressions for women.I don’t want to be a man. I don’t want to start wearing a tie to convince you that I can become a leader or an intelligent, powerful member of society. Some feminists believe in condemning makeup or high heels. For me, though, that would mean I somehow feel outward expressions of being a woman are demeaning in some way, or that being a woman is something I should learn to ignore in order to be taken seriously. I’m not trying to reach Manland. I’m trying to show that the female version of doing things has just as much merit as the male version. I’m trying to make sure we’re all given as equal a chance as possible, and that applies to both sexes. I’m trying to reach a place where being a woman is something to be celebrated, not overcome. — cjellert@indiana.eduFollow columnist Caroline Ellert on Twitter @cjellert.
(09/26/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Cell phones are destroying our nation’s youths.We’ve created a generation of technology slaves who will probably die trying to tweet one more #yolo.Our society will be reduced to a pile of soulless zombies clutching their smartphones. LOL.Relax, guys. This isn’t exactly my position.There is some reason to the technophobe argument, usually stemming from logic natural to those born before at least 1980.I partly understand.For example — I’m sick of people looking at their phones instead of each other. When I make eye contact with a passing stranger, it’s always this really weird thing where we stare at each other for a few seconds before hurriedly looking away and pretending not to look again because, you know, it’s weird. I must have an ulterior motive. Why else would I not be staring at my phone like a normal person?Then it happens with people you do know.First you’re having a conversation with a friend or acquaintance. The conversation starts to lull, and boom. You pull out your phone and look at people more exciting on Instagram. Namely you, because someone posted some “pics,” and that Instagram filter made you look really good.I live in a society where I feel like an old geezer because my phone only texts and makes calls. It’s positively prehistoric.These are a few examples of what’s wrong with the millennial generation. Or, as a May article in Time magazine called us, the “Me Me Me” generation.Before us, selfies didn’t exist and neither did Twitter or YouTube. These are signs of a doomed generation. Imagine if we told people at the dawn of the last century that we would share personal information with people we sort of met that one time. That every Sunday we share with these people a picture of ourselves we took on a good hair day at the most flattering angle.They did have pictures back then, except you had to paint them or something, and that took much longer. We millennials found a much better way. It’s true I’m coming into a different world than my parents. Just like how they came into a different world than their parents. We do rely on the Internet too much, but in the same way people before us came to rely on the horseless carriage. Certain pre-millennials shouldn’t be lecturing us on how we’re ruining everything. You guys screwed things up for us, too. The market crash of 2008 was definitely not my fault. I was still in middle school.Only six in 10 of us millennials are employed in the United States. The average student debt is $26,600. The amount of economic inequality between the rich and everyone else is the highest it’s been since before the Great Depression. So, excuse us for trying to take things into the future with a bit of technology. Contrary to what some might tell you, technology has helped more than it’s hindered us. This generation may not leave the house without our phones, but we’re still moving forward. — cjellert@indiana.eduFollow columnist Caroline Ellert on Twitter @cjellert.
(09/12/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The grassroots movement in support of Hillary Clinton running for president in 2016 is called “Ready for Hillary.” Are we ready for Hillary?We were faced with a similar situation in the 2008 election. President Obama and Clinton represent two different groups running for an office for which, until fairly recently, they could not even vote. Similar situations, but not quite the same.So, maybe we generally don’t have the impression in society that women are sub-standard to men — not that is explicitly discussed, anyway.There is a whole set of logistical problems that would come with being a female president. In a 2012 article by the Guardian, Barack Obama said he wears only blue or gray suits “in order to cut down on non-vital decisions.” For a female president, her choice of wardrobe will be more heavily scrutinized. In 2009, then Secretary of State Clinton attended a United Nations General Assembly wearing a butterfly clip to keep her bangs off her face. The backlash was intense. Critics and the fashion world were abuzz with her grave fashion faux-pas.Clinton probably does not consider her hair a “vital decision,” and would not treat it as such if she were president. But the fact is, if she is elected leader of the free world, Hillary Clinton will make some fashion errors. She will have to put up with snarky articles about her hair.Even in what is likely the most high-pressure job in the world, a female president would still be expected to keep her roots from growing in, to be sure her makeup looks fresh, to ensure her suit doesn’t make her look fat. The president will not be immune to the unrealistic expectations for women in our society.She must be tough but not callous, good-looking but not vain. Every president has to fight to keep the support of the people. The last election helped shatter our image of a trustworthy president as being white, and now we have a different image to change. France did it 22 years ago, and Great Britain did it 34 years ago, but we have yet to elect a female leader. And so we still must shatter the image of a well-tailored suit and tie as indications of power and see if we can trust a president in a skirt. Gender inequalities and stereotypes are still inescapable in this country. Hillary Clinton has been fighting and beating gender stereotypes for decades. Politics aside, I think she’s ready to take on the historic task.Are you?— cjellert@indiana.eduFollow columnist Caroline Ellert on Twitter @cjellert.
(08/30/13 4:00am)
We are relatively sheltered here — the IU student population does not
accurately represent the diversity you will encounter on the job market
in bigger cities.
(08/23/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I spent the better part of my summer living with my grandmother, who happens to have a fondness for both MSNBC and the Food Network. Here’s what I learned.1. How to properly crack an egg: flat on the counter — it breaks more cleanly.2. If you’re a television cook with the tagline “How easy is that?” you can fool your audience into thinking what you’re making is, in fact, easy. For example, making a breakfast basket with orange marmalade, homemade muesli and date nut spice bread is actually easier than sticking a bow on a box of Fruit Loops. Granted, the Barefoot Contessa’s primary demographic probably isn’t college students, and no one asked me what I thought. I’d just as soon have the Fruit Loops. 3. When you’re sick of seeing the Barefoot Contessa make her husband’s favorite meal again, you can flip to a news network to learn something practical about the world around you.If you’re lucky, a royal baby will be on the way and you can watch the whole day to find out it’s a boy. Or pop royalty if it’s a slow summer. Here’s looking at you, North West.4. When a pastry expert or some other food expert comes onto a Food Network show, the show’s host listens attentively and allows said expert to take the reins. The result is the perfect cookie, or pie, or chocolate-dipped strawberry. When an expert comes onto a news show, the show’s host listens attentively, and the result is a fair and fact-based representation of the news. Wait, no. That doesn’t happen. Usually when an expert comes onto a news show, the host talks over the expert. The host can usually be seen as coming out on top with this method. The host can also stop an argument with a simple, yet effective, “We’ll have to leave it there.” 5. A newscast never truly ends until someone says, “We’ll have to leave it there.”6. Once Paula Deen is outed as a racist, they stop showing her reruns. I liked her food, so it’s kind of a bummer. 7. People who eat good food are cheerful. Everyone in Food Network-land is always smiling. Why? Eating makes you happy. I wonder what would happen if you gave Chris Matthews a cheesecake on air. 8. Leaning is better than standing. MSNBC has commercials telling you to “lean forward” on certain political issues, reflecting its political identity in an entirely subtle way. Sheryl Sandberg based a book on the concept of women “leaning in.” Me, I’ve been learning to lean away from the dream world in my head in which newscasters and politicians always tell the truth and some Food Network chef is always holding a dessert. Now I’m going back to months of crappy dorm food, Ramen and Easy Mac. Back to reality — sort of. It’s easy to forget that reality stretches beyond this small Indiana college town. There’s actually a whole world out there. Leaning toward issues that matter in this world, that’s important. I just wish someone would jump already. — cjellert@indiana.edu.Follow columnist Caroline Ellert on Twitter @cjellert.
(04/03/13 3:15am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Bloomington Volunteer Network and its partners recognized community members for achievement in volunteering Tuesday evening.The ceremony at the Buskirk-Chumley Theater awarded 10 volunteers out of more than 87 nominees. Bet Savich, director for the City of Bloomington Volunteer Network, said any member of the Bloomington community could nominate someone they felt spent a lot of time or had been especially effective in volunteer work.Each award recipient was also presented with a $500 check to be donated to their respective organizations.Savich, who presented the awards alongside WTIU Host of “The Weekly Special” Joe Hren, said nominees are the backstory of what is building Bloomington. Hren said the objective was to celebrate the behind-the-scenes volunteer work in a celebratory setting. The awards were separated into 10 categories specifically focused on college students. This year, the college honoree was Sigma Phi Epsilon.The brothers of Sig Ep were honored for their work with Habitat for Humanity. Harold “Pete” Goldsmith, IU dean of students and award presenter, said each of the 124 brothers spend at least four hours a month volunteering. Philanthropy Chair Reece Clark individually committed to spend at least 500 hours volunteering with Habitat before he graduates. “Our big values are virtue, diligence, and brotherly love,” Clark said. “Our work in the community is an expression of brotherly love.” Clark said the fraternity is really humbled for receiving the award. “The way we see it, we take only a few hours of our time,” Clark said. “It’s not too much to ask. We’re not doing it for the recognition.” Savich said the names of the recipients were not disclosed until the ceremony in order to keep the focus on the overall volunteer work and contributions.“Once we learn what people are doing, we’re inspired by it, but we never know how much they do,” Savich said. “For the most part, people who are being honored are doing it out of a sense of commitment and not because they want to be recognized.” Honorees for the “Be More Sustainable Award” Molly O’Donnell and Madi Hirschland, who nominated each other, said they were both surprised at their nominations.Hirschland promoted their organization, Hoosier Interfaith Power and Light, which focuses on combatting climate change, and said anyone can make a difference in the community.