32 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
Don’t get me wrong. Long-distance relationships have a lot of drawbacks. The lack of physical proximity, the financial strain of seeing each other and the enormous amount of trust required can and often do challenge the health of long-distance relationships. But, if done right, the relationship itself can pose a redemptive challenge that strengthens both the individual and the couple as a whole. Hear me out.
In July 2015, the Court of Arbitration for Sport handed down a ruling decried by some as “ending women’s sports as we know them.” They revoked the International Association of Athletics Federations’ regulation that required hyperandrogenic track and field athletes to keep their testosterone levels below 10nmol/L or face suspension. The normal female range of serum testosterone is 0.1-2.8nmol/L. For men, the figure is 10.5. The Court of Arbitration for Sport suspended the IAAF’s regulation for two years and will abolish it completely unless the IAAF could scientifically prove that hyperandrogenic athletes perform better due to their elevated testosterone levels. In all likelihood, the IAAF will be unable to do so. Many factors contribute to athletic success — not just testosterone. Proving a scientific link between testosterone and performance is difficult, not to mention that some hyperandrogenic athletes are androgen insensitive and do not benefit from elevated testosterone levels. That being said, some clearly do.
“Check your privilege,” is a phrase you’ve probably heard recently. Perhaps it’s been said to you, or maybe you’ve used it yourself. In essence, it is a reminder — typically directed at white, straight, financially well-off men — to be aware of the advantages they have been granted since birth. But, in addition to serving as a reminder, it also implies that because of those characteristics, a person of privilege is less able to speak about issues of race, class or gender inequity because he simply does not fit the bill of a person who might have combated one or more of those inequalities first-hand.
It’s getting hot in Hanover. And as the temperature rises, so does the number of people wearing sunglasses, boat shoes, salmon shorts and, you would hope, sunblock. Unfortunately, a 2013 survey reviewed by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that a minority of respondents, only 14.3 percent of men and 29.9 percent of women, regularly use sunscreen on their face and other exposed skin. Those of us who both buy and apply sunblock on a regular basis will know that the drug store has a whole litany of options available when it comes to lathering up before going outside.
Black privilege is a term that has been in the news lately, circulating implicitly and explicitly, both on CNN and at Donald Trump rallies as one cause for so-called “reverse racism.” As the name implies, black privilege is the idea that a person of color is afforded certain privileges based on the color of their skin. This is, to an extent, true — racial identity does come with certain privileges. Being able to define oneself as part of a group, for instance, can be an emboldening and enriching experience. The concept of black privilege, however, is most often mistakenly used in response to and with the same connotation as white privilege — that is, as pushback against the idea that whiteness comes with certain, unmerited advantages.Although a relatively new phrase, black privilege is not a new concept. It is the sting behind ignorant assertions such as, “That person only got into that school because they’re black,” or, “They get to say things that I don’t because I’m white.” It is the belief held by the ignorant that political correctness somehow oppresses those who do not wish to be politically correct. Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump is one of those people.Trump derives much of his popularity from rebelling against the system, by providing a space for hate to be exposed and for oft-unspoken points of contention to be vocalized. Many of his more fervent supporters use the concept of black privilege to protest political correctness, complaining that certain words, for instance, have become taboo for them or that they cannot voice their true feelings out of fear that they will be accused of being racist. Having thus acknowledged this, they then proceed to preach ignorance, spouting statements that are often either intentionally racist or so backwards in logic that they seem to convey a similar point. For instance, one Wisconsin man, when asked if he believed in white privilege, replied negatively. Those who embrace whiteness, he explained, are portrayed as racist, and said “If we had a White History Month, that would be viewed as a racist holiday.” He proceeded to cite Black History Month as an example of glaring inequality.All too often, the idea that blackness or minority status leads to privilege is the result of a superficial understanding of reality. According to the demographic information regarding Dartmouth’s newest group of admitted students, the Class of 2020 will be the first one comprised of a majority of people of color, who represent 51.6 percent of the admitted applicant pool. At first, this may seem peculiar considering that white people still make up the bulk of the United States’ population, with whites representing a whopping 77.4 percent. Upon closer review, however, it’s easy to understand why this is: Dartmouth accepts a disproportionate amount of students from cosmopolitan areas, in which white people are not always the majority. Furthermore, nearly a tenth of Dartmouth students come from overseas. Lastly, the admissions office seems to value diversity, boasting on its homepage, “At Dartmouth, you will be surrounded by the brightest and most diverse group of friends you’re likely to encounter anywhere.”For some white Americans, such a bold statement may be frightening. After all, white people are so accustomed to being the majority — so accustomed to their privilege — that any value placed on non-whiteness may be perceived as an affront to their sense of security, perhaps even their sense of self. White culture, to a large extent, is defined very stringently in contrast to the more richly developed identities of other races and, indeed, is based on a history of oppressing non-white peoples. In this sense, white culture is fragile. However, holidays such as Black History Month or greater numbers of people of color admitted to the College are not examples of inequality. Rather, they are examples of progress away from the historic inequity that continues to plague American society. Black History Month is a chance to learn about the history we are not taught in school, about the individuals who do not fit into the traditionally Eurocentric curriculum. And the changing demographics of admitted students, rather than indicating black privilege, represent the rise in college matriculation for non-white Americans, who naturally increase the diversity of the student body.Highlighting the diversity of a student body or celebrating Black History Month are not forms of discriminations against white people. Both are examples of pride — justifiable pride — being displayed for noteworthy accomplishments, and should not be called black privilege but, rather, what they actually represent: black pride.
After going on Reddit this past week to promote “The Nightly Show,” Larry Wilmore, who occupies the time-slot once filled by Stephen Colbert, was bombarded by angry Redditors. One third of the comments focused on a segment from September wherein host Wilmore and a panel of comedians cracked jokes at the expense of celebrity scientist Bill Nye. In response to one Redditor’s accusation that “The Nightly Show” “has done nothing but pander to the lowest common racial tensions denominator,” Wilmore emphasized his desire of he and his staff to focus on issues of “race, class and gender.”
For those of you who haven’t yet heard of the Pink Tax, prepare yourselves. A study by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs found that, on average, the “female” version of a product costs seven percent more than its “male” counterpart. The most well-documented examples of this inequity are found in health and beauty products. There’s the pink razor that costs more than the blue razor and the women’s shampoo that costs more than the men’s, despite being made of essentially the same ingredients. For the most part, there is no discernible reason — other than marketing — for the difference in price.
The American political system is in disarray. The seemingly enormous divide between Democrats and Republicans widens daily, and with the 2016 presidential race in full-swing, it isn’t hard to see the fissures forming within parties as well. Long gone are the days of bi-partisanship, the cross-party teamwork of the early 60s and early 80s. Today, we languish in the grip of a political gridlock, a stagnation dotted periodically with brief moments of hope. We say, “If only we elect him, then things will really happen. He’ll do things. He’s not a politician.” What does it say about the state of American politics that the claim to fame of the current Republican front-runner is that he is not a politician?
I visited my old high school over break and found that some changes had been made. Most notably, the administration had recently enacted a rule banning all cellphones from school, not only during class time but also during free periods and off-hours. Some teachers were so eager to enforce this rule that one even tried to take mine from me while I was on campus. I politely informed her that I was an adult with all the accompanying privileges. Still, she seemed wary and eyed me with suspicion, which got me thinking: Is banning cellphones a productive policy?
In response to the outpouring of grief and anger over the killing of Cecil the lion in August, American Airlines announced it would no longer transport the bodies of large-game animals as cargo. While the nearly 400,000 petitioners who had put pressure on the airline giant to halt its practices of trophy transport hailed this decision as a victory, many conservationist-hunting groups — those who advocate for selectively hunting certain endangered species — felt differently.
In 2000, a group of representatives from the United Nations met to discuss the progress of worldwide development over the previous decade and sign into agreement the Millennium Development Goals. Their objective was to “galvanize unprecedented efforts to meet the needs of the world’s poorest.” The eight goals they set were eradicating extreme poverty and hunger; achieving universal primary education; promoting gender equality; reducing childhood mortality; improving maternal health; combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability and creating a global partnership for development. This plan, though ambitious, has pretty much worked — and it is vital that everyone support the Millennium Development Goals as they enter their next phase.
On Thursday, Oct. 1, a gunman opened fire at Umpqua Community College — a small school in Roseburg, Oregon — and killed nine people. Counting the shooter, who died by suicide, the death tally totaled 10 by the day’s end. “Let me be very clear, I will not name the shooter,” replied Sheriff John Hanlin, whose force was responsible for answering the shooting spree. “I will not give him the credit he probably sought prior to this horrific and cowardly act.” This was the correct response — in the face of tragedy, we should remember the victims instead of the murderer, and understand how these catastrophes affect us both as a nation and as individual people.