BINGHAMTON REVIEW Editor-in-Chief Contents
P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Founded 1987 • Volume XXX, Issue XIV Patrick McAuliffe Jr. Copy Desk Chief Elizabeth Elliot
Business Manager Jason Caci
Social Media Shitposter Thomas Sheremetta
Editor Emeritus Jordan Raitses
Associate Editor Adrienne Vertucci
Staff Writers
Alex Carros, Luke Kusick, Jordan Jardine, Tommy Gagliano, Matthew Rosen
Contributors
PRESSWATCH 2: ELECTRIC REVIEWALOO
PAGE 8
by Our Staff
6 The Forgotten Minority on Campus by Matt Rosen 10 Left-Leaning Catholics Aren’t a Thing by Alex Carros 11 Individualism and Catholicism by Luke Kusick 13 DDLG Ruins the Party Again by Rebecca Goldstein 14 Meal Plan Scams
by Tommy Gagliano
Rebecca Goldstein
Special Thanks To:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth. He Provides the Staples
Departments 3 Editorial 4 Campus Presswatch 5 What You Missed
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to editor@binghamtonreview.com 2
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXX, Issue XIV
EDITORIAL Dear Readers,
W
From the Editor
e did it. YOU did it. We’re nearly out of this year. Finals are upon us, and then we have three months of hot weather and plenty of adventures for you to go on. Unfortunately, we won’t be able to come with you...unless you’ve got binghamtonreview.com bookmarked on your phone. Come on, I know you do. Heck, if you really WANT to we can try for a summer issue...oh stop it, you...alright, I’ll think about it. We’ve got some extremely solid content for this last issue of the year, and I wouldn’t end this year any other way. First off, I want to mention our graduating seniors, two of which are responding to Jordan’s last piece, “Left-Leaning Catholics Are a Thing.” Alex and Luke, Catholic and Orthodox, respectively, write their final articles in the spirit of where conversation inevitably turns with them: to the technicalities of the orthodox Christian traditions. Thank you to our Copy Desk Chief Elizabeth for her many years of service behind the scenes for the Review. Everyone else will hang around for a little while at least. We can hope, anyways. On to the young’uns! Matt talks about his experience of being a conservative surrounded by intolerant liberals at every turn, and asks for the same courtesy he shows to them in respecting their opinions. Rebecca covers a strange, deplorable kink called Daddy Dom/Little Girl (DDLG), and the implications for implicitly sanctioning pedophilia in a sexual context. Finally, Tommy hits home with how much of a waste the on-campus resident meal plan is, doing the math and some price comparisons to get his readers thinking about whether a resident meal plan is actually a good deal. You may notice our departments looking a bit fatter than normal. We finally brought back What You Missed, because so much has happened in the last few weeks that we wanted to provide a little summary all in one place. You may have seen some of those, but they’re all worth reading again and searching for yourself. After this, our cover story is actually another Press Watch. The first ever, totally new Press Watch 2: Electric Reviewaloo, to be exact. Together, our staff responds to Michael Sugarman’s article in Free Press about how, by giving us an unaltered budget, the SA supports our “bigotry” and we can “keep getting away with it.” “It” being the bigotry. Apparently. I wasn’t aware I was! Well, Michael, I hope our answers were satisfactory enough to fit or adjust your “nuanced view” of us. Gonna miss you, boo. And you, dear reader, I will miss most of all. This year has had its ups and downs, and no shortage of controversy in all spheres of life, but I’ll be at the helm of the Review again next year. I want to propel the Review to even greater heights with these amazing people. It is my honor and privilege to work with them and kick off another excellent thirty years of Truth and Two Staples. We hope you’ll be a part of it.
Sincerely,
Our Mission Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, studentrun news magazine of conservative thought at Binghamton University founded in 1987. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives. The mark of true maturity is being able to engage with those divergent perspectives rationally while maintaining one’s own convictions. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free and open exchange of ideas and offer alternative viewpoints not normally found or accepted on our predominately liberal campus. We stand against tyranny in all of its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of Western civilization. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness and cultural authoritarianism that dominates this university. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage with, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.
Patrick McAuliffe Jr.
Views expressed by writers do not necessarily represent the views of the publication as a whole. editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
3
CPampus resswatch We know you don’t read the other campus publications, so we do it for you. Original quotes are noted, our responses are in bold. “We must condemn men who blame their violent acts on women” By Annick Tabb Pipe Dream, May 3, 2018 “The incel movement found its way onto my radar when I read that Alek Minassian, a suspect in a van attack in Toronto that killed ten people in April, had been connected to this online community.” If THAT’S how you first heard of “incels,” Facebook has some excellent tag groups full of incel garbage. “It is perfectly normal to feel badly when someone you are romantically interested in rejects you. It is not normal, however, to blame the person or vilify and dehumanize their entire gender and society at large for your ‘failure.’ ” To be honest, there’s not much to disagree with here. Incels have no understanding of how the world works and defeat their own chances of ever finding happiness with another person. Everyone: don’t be an incel, and don’t be an asshole that blames their own shortcomings on scapegoats or other rational humans who make the perfectly rational (and correct) choice to not sleep with you. “ ‘Hashtag activism’ wrongfully discourages criticism” By Theodora Catrina Pipe Dream, May 3, 2018 “Hashtag activism is often critiqued for its limitations. The ability to share and like a tweet may not equate to demanding change through physical protest. To some, it may seem that it is simply a method of communicating to others that you care about the issue at hand, as opposed to actively seeking change.”
4
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Written by our Staff
Absolutely, Theodora. Virtue signalling in this department is just lazy. It’s worked for a lot of people so far, unfortunately. Looking trendy or progressive is sometimes valued just as much as busting your butt for a cause. “Essentially, [French actress Catherine Deneuve] penned a letter that stated the legitimate protest against sexual violence had gone too far. She claimed that unwelcome sexual advances by men were not sexual assault and the #MeToo movement sent “men to the slaughterhouse” before they were even found guilty.” Deneuve knows what’s up. There’s a difference between being overtly annoying and harassing to a woman and flirting or making mild sexual advances. Has courtship gone out the window? “This harsh response to a personal opinion closed the door for an open dialogue about the faults of #MeToo, thus impeding its progress. “This occurrence is not singular; instead, it is happening quite frequently. This creates an echo chamber, where people will only surround themselves with like-minded individuals, rarely opening themselves up for healthy debate and change.” Our DMs and our door are always open for some of that healthy debate. Even though you may not agree with Deneuve’s message, it’s comforting to know that people still value breaking from the echo chamber. Wait, this isn’t Pipe Dream as normal?
“Cuffing season’s over; now what?” By Liz Short Free Press, Spring (Cleaning) Issue “Ah cuffing season.” We can’t just pick on Pipe Dream all the time, guys. Let’s take a look. “Now we reach a truly special part of breakups, the post-end realization. Maybe you didn’t want to admit it, but you felt some relief when things reached their end. Hold onto that!” Wait, what? Hold onto the relief that I no longer have a special person in my life? Yes, there are reasons for things ending, but what if I got broken up with? In my mind, I didn’t do anything. Do I squash my confusion and hurt deep down, drowning it in self-indulgence? “Now’s the time to focus on you and you alone. Somedays you really need to look at all the choices in front of you, decide which is the most selfish, and then do that. The best revenge is a life well-lived.” If revenge motivates those actions, it doesn’t sound like you’re living for you. In this post-breakup time, it’s important to not slip into nihilism.
Vol. XXX, Issue XIV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
WHAT YOU MISSED North Korea and South Korea are meeting for peace talks for the first time in the nations’ histories. Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in, North and South Korean leaders, respectively, stepped onto each other’s soil at the DMZ on April 27th. President Moon has credited President Donald Trump with a major role in helping to bring these talks to fruition. On May 3rd, Rep. Eric Swalwell (DCA) wrote an op-ed in USA Today entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters”, proposing a similar buyback program for semiautomatic guns in America that Australia instituted in 1996. Rep. Swalwell cites “the right to live” as “supreme over any other,” including the Second Amendment. While many Democrats and gun control advocates in the past have cited the success of a buyback program in Australia, none have gone as far as to say that gun confiscation is their goal. Facebook’s partner company Cambridge Analytica was revealed to have used Facebook users’ data in running targeted ads during the 2016 election. Facebook acknowledged its complicity in the data breach, and Mark Zuckerberg went to testify before Congress. The memes about Zuck ensued. February 5th, 2018 marked the anniversary of the day where the Berlin Wall was down the same number of days as it was up. It stood for 28 years - 10,316 days - and Feb 5th marked 10,316 days since it was torn down. All of Eastern Europe breathed a sigh of relief.
making in Europe. Cosby is also in the porcess of losing a few honors from the American Advertising Federation. Hawaii’s volcano Mount Kilauea erupted on May 4th, releasing lava into residential areas and forcing over 1,500 people to evacuate. This eruption was preceded by earthquakes that did not exceed 5 on the Richter scale. On April 26th at a SA Congress meeting, President Harvey Stenger announced the implementation of a new rapid response alert system and the installation of 350 cameras in College-inthe-Woods and Hinman College buildings. The new alert system is designed to give students a preliminary warning, and the current B-Alert system would be used afterwards to send out more detailed information. The new cameras are being installed in the two oldest communities on campus that do not have the same recent renovations as the others. The US Commerce Department has added a new question to the 2020 census involving one’s citizenship status. Many states, counties, and the District of Columbia are suing the federal government, who passed the rule to ensure that the Fair Voting Act would be followed and enforced. A talk was given on BU’s campus regarding the possible policy implications of low response rates for the citizenship question.
Rapper Kanye West came under fire ina series of tweets about President Trump and race relations that began with, “You don’t have to agree with trump but the mob can’t make me not love him... He is my brother...I don’t agree with everything anyone does. That’s what makes us individuals. And we have the right to independent thought.” Trump responded, “Thank you Kanye, very cool!” In the ensuing outcry, Chance the Rapper threw his “3” hat into the ring, tweeting, “Black people don’t have to be democrats.” Discuss. Jasmine Harrison, a North Carolina teenager, was accepted into 113 colleges and universities across the country. She was offered around $4.5 million in scholarships. She was able to apply to so many colleges at once through the Common Black College Application and the College Foundation of North Carolina College Application Week program. In keeping with the announcement made late last year, the Boy Scouts of America will be renaming their main Scouting program to “Scouts BSA,” in order to provide a more gender-inclusive program for new female Scouts. Troops can be single gendered or coed, with separate patrols for boys and girls. The Cub Scouts will follow a similar pattern. The Venturing program, an existing co-ed program focused on outdoor pursuits, will remain as is.
Actor Bill Cosby and director Roman Polanski were expelled from the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences because of their history of abuse and assault scandals. Cosby, accused of sexual assault over more than a decade, has also had degress and honors stripped from him from over twenty five colleges and universities. Polanski fled the United States over a case of statutory rape involving a 13-year old girl in 1978, and continued his film-
editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
5
THE FORGOTTEN MINORITY ON CAMPUS
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
The Forgotten Minority on Campus By Matt Rosen
A
couple weeks ago, I attended an event on campus where a panel talked about free speech at Binghamton University. The main talking point of the event was about the struggle of protecting freedom of speech while also creating a safe and comfortable environment for students. After the event, they had a question and answer session where students clearly took the side of Team Comfortable. They wondered, “Why we can’t defund the Binghamton Review?” Students from minority groups on campus told of their struggle of not feeling safe or comfortable on campus. Unfortunately, because these students were rude, hostile, and constantly disruptive, I was unable to ask my question. So I figured I would ask it now: “You have all been talking about making a campus environment that is safe and comfortable for all students. Why haven’t you talked at all about protections for conservative students? You’ve been referring to the possibility of censoring offensive conservative speech, but don’t we get to feel comfortable on our own campus as well?” The reason I ask this question is because people often forget that conservatives on a college campus are also a minority. I personally feel just as uncomfortable, if not more so, as other minorities on campus do. Sharing my political views has made me lose friends, gotten me yelled at, and even got me in trouble with professors. I have effectively been silenced in public at Binghamton University. Just last week, someone who I was relatively friendly with, learned that I write for the Binghamton Review, and now will not associate with me anymore. Other times, I tried to make new friends on campus. Just seeing my Facebook page or even hearing that I was Repub-
6
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
lican made them immediately sigh and give me nervous looks. I also decided to wear my Trump hat on election day, and couldn’t help but feel uneasy because of the threatening looks that numerous other students were giving me. I’ve been yelled at on facebook and in person for not only being a Trump supporter, but also a Republican. On top of this, Binghamton Review property often gets vandalized and its members labeled as Nazis. This list of hostile and unfair events could go on for a long time. I am not trying to make it seem like I am “oppressed.” That word gets carelessly thrown around a lot, and it just isn’t true. But when I’m sitting in a room packed with students and faculty who are all clapping for the idea of shutting down the Binghamton Review, an organization I’m proudly a part of, how am I not supposed to feel uncomfortable? I find it quite ironic that students of minority races or sexualities are getting passionate about feeling comfortable on campus, yet in the same breath try to shut conservatives down, censor us, and make us feel ostracized on campus. For all the people involved in this hypocrisy, I have two quick points to make. One: you have the right to feel relatively com-
“I have had professors who openly laughed at conservative ideas and tried to make me feel stupid for believing America is a close to perfect democracy. I even had one professor who religiously made fun of Trump for 30-40 minutes every class before even getting to the course material.” fortable on campus, but don’t we deserve that as well? And two: no one in Binghamton Review, College Republicans, or College Libertarians wants to “oppress” you. None of us are racist, sexist, homophobic, or any other “-ist” or “-phobic.” Another problem on campus is with the predominantly liberal staff. I was introduced to this issue right before my first day at Binghamton. I ran into a former student who graduated as a political science major. She was a Republican, and warned me to keep my mouth shut in class, and to write papers that lean towards liberal ideas as to not anger teachers. This former student told me that professors would lower grades simply because they didn’t like a conservative argument. I have done my best to keep to this advice, but writing liberal papers is near impossible for me to do. One time I had to write a paper describing whether I would vote for or against a specific bill if I was in Congress. I wrote that I would vote against it because it mandated businesses to give certain free services, which I believe to be unconstitutional. In another paper I wrote that the Citizens United v. FEC
Vol. XXX, Issue XIV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM case was decided correctly, agreeing with the position of Antonin Scalia. Both professors argued that I “did not have an argument,” and lowered my grade. I challenged both teachers, but neither cared, no matter how much I explained my legitimate argument. I have had professors who openly laughed at conservative ideas and tried to make me feel stupid for believing America is a close to perfect democracy. I even had one professor who religiously made fun of Trump for 30-40 minutes every class before even getting to the course material. As I am writing this article, I have a reading assignment that is a Vox article about the dark, authoritarian Presidency of Donald Trump and his racist supporters. This is getting out of hand, and I’m sick of it. A new study from the National Association of Scholars was done to show just how politically biased universities are. Data collected from 51 of the top universities in the country showed that the ratio of faculty registered as Democrat to those registered Republican is 12.7 to 1. The research “found that nearly 40 percent of the colleges in the study had zero faculty members who were registered Republican. Not a single one. Nearly 80 percent of the 51 colleges had so few Republican faculty members that they were statistically insignificant.” So I will ask again: How are conservative students supposed to feel comfortable on a college campus? How are we supposed to feel comfortable being ourselves and speaking our mind? Neither liberals nor conservatives should be labeled or censored, and both should have their freedom of speech protected. No student should start with the preconception that conservatives are a “backwards” and offensive group. Going to college is supposed to expose you to new ideas, including ideas that you don’t agree with. All I ask is that we can share our views without being dehumanized. All I ask is that you judge me and my friends based on our personalities, not our political views. All I ask is that you let me walk around my campus and feel comfortable, regardless of what I believe.
editor@binghamtonreview.com
THE FORGOTTEN MINORITY ON CAMPUS
Publication Report Card
How did the other publications stack up this year? The Review reviews:
Pipe Dream: B-
As per usual, Pipe Dream provided plenty of content for our Press Watches and not much else of note. They did a fine job reporting on the stories around campus and Binghamton, but if a paper could be missionary sex, it would be Pipe Dream. You know what you’re getting, you don’t have to put much effort in, and the satisfaction goes down the more you engage.
Free Press: C+
What saves Free Press from a year that would tank their Review GPA (TM) is their improved layout, so much better than previous years. Lots of color on the covers, well-laid out pages, the whole nine yards. Otherwise, opening the average issue reminds one of what a human Birkenstock would sound like. (Yes, that’s a bad thing.) And the horoscopes! (You are the true Lord of the Dance, no matter what those idiots at work say.)
Asian Outlook: B+
It’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea, but that’s alright. The issues are well-structured, colors are eye-catching, and the authors have done their homework. Their back cover self-promotion on every issue puts us to shame.
Ellipsis: B-
It might be a funding issue, in which case it is totally understandable, but I miss the olden days of those little glossy booklets. This newspaper-style paper feels a bit awkward, and personally I’m not a fan of some of the surrealist-esque pieces.
The Bing BUTT: B/B-
Technically allowed to be here since they have one print issue. Some of their pieces are knockouts (see Harvey’s Orgasm), others are if Pipe Dream comics were written out; that is, bad. (By the way, Tree, your cousin that this was printed on says hi! He’s living his best life! He wants you to leaf him alone.) BINGHAMTON REVIEW
7
CPampus resswatch 2: Electric Reviewaloo BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
By Our Staff
P
ress Watch so nice, we did it twice. Here we set aside some room to respond to Michael Sugarman’s kind words on our “bigotry,” published in the Free Press’ “Spring (Cleaning) Issue”. Original text in quotes, our responses are in bold. You know the drill. “It’s been about a month and a half since the SA sent out an email to the entire student body ‘denouncing’ the Binghamton Review and its homophobia in particular. And yet, what has actually happened in that time?” Well, you still seem upset, so I suppose that’s still happened. Seriously, did you expect there to be marches? Bus boycotts? Camping out by our office? People have made shitstorms out of molehills for our entire 30year history; join the queue of hurt feelings.
we cross paths counts as a “nuanced view,” then sure. As 2-Pack Shaker says, “Only God can judge [us].” And somthing tells me most of us are a little bit closer with the Big Man than a lot of people on campus with their chakras aligned. “Some members of their publication are what they claim to be, which is simply conservative-leaning students. They’re generally polite and professional, and any interaction I’ve had with them has been overall pretty positive.”
“As someone who’s shared an office with the Review for about a year and a half, I’d like to think I have a slightly more nuanced view. “ No you don’t. If completely ignoring us every time you’re in the office and avoiding eye contact whenever
8
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
“I wish there were a real conservative publication on campus, because I think that is a valid viewpoint that should certainly have a voice, but the fact of the matter is that voice is not and will never be the Binghamton Review.” Do you really want that, though? It’s hard to believe since there is one currently, and most of the time it does a very good job offering that voice, but all you want to do is slander it because you personally don’t agree with its views politically. We’re sorry a conservative paper isn’t exactly filled to the brim with phallic imagery. “For every sane and rational voice in their organization, there is a bigoted coward hiding behind a pseudonym, and those rational members have allowed this hateful rhetoric not only to continue, but to be submitted and published.” Hey man, we’ve taken a lot of steps to improve our ratios here: we only have three hateful, backwards, bigoted members for every polite member.
“That’s the problem with the SA and our school’s administration in general. They love to be seen as “progressive” with these sorts of blanket statements, but refuse to make any sort of substantive change.” Agreed; the SA trying to be progressive and kowtow to your whining is a real problem. “...such as when students putting up posters to protest this very issue were met with police rather than any real response from the administration.” Did the posters have “SA Chartered” on them? I heard those get ripped down. For real though, students can’t just put up posters whenever and wherever they want. It’s unfortunate, but speech laws here aren’t the worst in the country by far.
ers deep in my confirmation bias. Do you actually read any of our well-reasoned articles? Or do you just want to leave out the fact that you make a point to barely interact with us at all?
That’s who we are. Is it so hard to believe? But those people are still complicit in the “hate speech,” right? Hang on, wait for it…. “However, there are also those who are exactly what the Review has proven themselves to be: hateful, backwards, and bigoted. I’ve heard some of the most awful things being said in that office, from disgusting slurs to entire groups of people demonized and being told they have no right to exist.” There it is. I wouldn’t believe that for a second unless I was seventeen lay-
“So what is there to do? Even if every single student were to boycott and refuse to read any further issues of the Review, it wouldn’t affect anything. They would still get their money from the SA, which, by the way, is no small amount. They print at least once a month, which is more than twice the amount we do, because they have the funds.” Every single student would never do that, though. It’s hard to believe, but conservatives on this campus exist. They have an outlet in the Review and, unlike many people (not naming names), they’re willing to take an actual nuanced view to what we write.
Vol. XXX, Issue XIV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM “The only people who can make any sort of substantive difference are the SA. I don’t know if I believe the Review should lose their charter or get kicked off campus, on the basis of freedom of the press, but I do think the Review should at least lose some of their funding.” “I don’t think that they should be punished, because freedom of speech, but they should be punished.” Speaking of freedom of the press and speech, most people (including the Supreme Court) set the limit for free speech when it creates a “clear and present danger,” like the whole firein-a-theater thing. Or, if you’re a fan of John Stuart Mill (even though you, Mr. Sugarman, are probably not), speech has its limits if it is clear that a call to violence will immanently start an act of violence. For example, if someone went all WBC, but with weapons, outside of the Q Center. We have never done that, never intend to do that, and would condemn them to the fullest possible extent should, God forbid, it happen. Heck, even the most controversial articles in the last few years have never once made a call to violence. You have no leg to stand on, besides “This was an example of sloppy journalism and my feelings were hurt.” “At the very least, something needs to happen so they’re not “getting away with it,” because as it stands now, nothing bad actually happened to them. After the email was sent out denouncing them, the Review published an “apology” on their facebook page, but from their latest issue, it’s clear that their apology is a pile of shit.” Technically speaking, The Tides of March issue came after the Sex Issue, THEN came the satirical April Fools issue. This was planned long before the hoopla about the Sex Issue. By the way, if you notice what the “apology” says, we “never intend to distress our READERS” (emphasis added). How many people that are angry about what we write actually look at it for what it is, with that whole “nuanced” view? We know of people that don’t agree with us that actually do, so it is
editor@binghamtonreview.com
PRESSWATCH 2: ELECTRIC REVIEWALOO possible. Try it! “While I would never recommend picking up an issue of the Review, check out the latest letter from the editor, because it’s so painfully evident that they don’t care, and will continue to spew out their hateful garbage until someone (the SA) actually does something about it.” That’s the way to understand (and, if that’s your goal, defeat) one’s political opposites - just ignore them and cover your ears. It’s all figured out, everyone go home. (Editor here. Is what I write really painful? More importantly, did you actually READ the Editorial? I’m touched! Nobody ever reads that!)
“It’s hard to believe, but conservatives on this campus exist. They have an outlet in the Review and, unlike many people (not naming names), they’re willing to take an actual nuanced view to what we write.” “The SA has a budget of about 2.8 million dollars to spend every year. Clearly, this is not an issue of budgeting, though some of that would definitely be better spent going to campus services such as the counseling center, for example.” Why don’t we take some of your money? At least we publish analysis of real, important news, unlike you guys who publish horoscopes, “what kind of flower are you?,” playlists, and “How to Smoke Weed: A Guide to Perfecting Pot Etiquette.” (By the way, we got tulips, sunflowers, succulent plants, and dandelions. Just general enough to maybe sort of apply to anyone that takes it!)
That’s not how it works. In fact it probably looks better for them to promote diversity of ideas. That’s right, we used your trigger word. While you get on your moral high horse by talking about “diversity,” the SA isn’t going to censor a publication simply because our ideas diverge from the majority of the people on this campus. See Matt’s article about people like us being the most ignored minority on campus. “The SA may not itself be a bigoted organization, but with the way the SA spends their money, they do literally support bigotry, which is not something that I and many other students are comfortable with.” There are so many layers here. Donkay. Not all Review members are bigoted, according to you, but the ones that are respectful might as well be because they aren’t suppressing or censoring the “hate speech.” Therefore, the entire Review is hateful bigotry. Zoom out, the SA has one “bad apple” in their subordinate organizations, therefore they support bigotry and might as well be bigots themselves. The SA falls under the umbrella of the BU administration, which isn’t putting pressure on the SA to cut funding for their “bad apple,” so THEY’RE bigots, too. The state of New York financially supports BU...do you see where this is going? Nice nuance. “Shouldn’t the Student Association represent students?” You know we’re students too, right? Do we count?
“The issue is that the way the SA spends their money reflects them as an organization, and Binghamton as a school overall.”
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
9
LEFT-LEANING CATHOLICS AREN’T A THING
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Left-Leaning Catholics Aren’t a Thing By Alex Carros
L
ast issue, colleague and friend of mine Jordan Jardine published an article in which he argued that libertarian Catholics are “a thing,” and that not all members of the Church are socially conservative Republicans. Now, before I begin, I want to make it clear to both Jordan and you, the readers, that I am not trying to shame or browbeat anyone for what they believe. He, like you, is entitled to have opinions on whatever issues he so chooses. The only point I want to make here is that you cannot hold some of the opinions expressed in Jordan’s article while being a faithful, believing member of the Catholic Church. I will not address his demographic data, like the Pew Research polls, since I want to focus more so on the specific moral and political stances that he claims Catholics are free to have. First and foremost is the stance on abortion. While I commend Jordan for denouncing abortion as evil, the exceptions of its use in “cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is in danger” is not a tenable attitude for a faithful Catholic. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is more or less “the Catholic Handbook”, makes the Church’s stance utterly clear: abortion is a clear, undisputable moral evil that robs an innocent human being of life. The language used in the document is rather straightforward: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.” (taken from line 2271). It supports the historical aspect of the claim with writings from the Church Fathers, such as the dictum “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish” from the Didache (an official first-century Catholic decree). For this reason you cannot be pro-choice (regardless of the circumstances of the procedure) and be a faithful Catholic.
10
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Next, Jordan writes that he has “always supported the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry…” This is likewise not a position a Catholic is free to make. Once again, quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’... Under no circumstances can they be approved.” Further, the Church has continually affirmed that “the union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator’s generosity and fecundity…” (2357). Never, in 2000 years of sacred history, has Catholicism ever accepted or encouraged same-sex marriage. However, it is entirely possible that Jordan was taking an entirely civic stance on the matter, specifically saying that in the eyes of secular law, two men or two women should be free to enter into any marriage contract they see fit. I am inclined to agree with stance, not because I agree with it morally or ethically, but rather because I want the government (particularly the federal government) completely divorced from the institution. However, being
a faithful Catholic requires opposing same-sex marriage at the societal level, as we believe traditional marriage to be the best possible environment for raising children. Jordan’s other comments on abolishing centralized authority are sound. Curiously, Jordan writes that Pope Francis is “breaking the stereotype that Catholics and Christians are stuffy social conservatives.” 1) Catholics are Christians. In fact we were (and are) the very first Christians. 2) Pope Francis has been very, very clear in his personal opposition and official opposition to both abortion and samesex marriage. Regarding the latter, for example, he referred to it as “anthropological regression”, and believes that the LGBTQ movements are practicing “ideological colonization.” While he did affirm the fact that no human being has the right to judge the entirety of another person (i.e. if they’re going to Heaven or Hell), this is not the same as condoning homosexual behavior. All he said was that we’re incapable of knowing another person’s destination after death, though we are still obligated as Catholics to condemn sinful actions and encourage a life of chastity. The Pope cannot, under any
Vol. XXX, Issue XIV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM circumstances, officially support a heretical notion on the sanctity of marriage nor the sinfulness of unchaste sexual actions. The most he can do, as Jordan somewhat pointed out, is be soft on openly condemning it. To be fair, the Holy Father has been rather “wishy-washy” on making definitive statements. Lastly, I wish to address Jordan’s claim that “God cares more about punishing murderers, rapists, thieves, and frauds than punishing two consenting adults of the same sex loving each other and not bothering anyone else.” There are several problems with this statement, the first and most obvious being that God doesn’t have to prioritize which sins (particularly mortal sins, or sins that send a soul to Hell if unrepented) are more important in punishing. This implies that God has a limited amount of time, attention, or resources to dispense His divine justice. Since there are limits on time for us mortal beings, we should focus on
LEFT-LEANING CATHOLICS AREN’T A THING murderers and rapists and not on people in same-sex relationships, but God is infinite. That’s the whole point: God is endless, omnipresent, and all powerful. And to be Catholic isn’t to be a libertarian in the social sense. We, as Catholics, aren’t called to a life of absolute freedom and pleasure. We are called to live in accordance with God’s laws for the Universe in order to be with Him forever after death. Whether or not we’re hurting a third party is irrelevant: sex, by its very nature, is meant to be unitive and procreative. Since all homosexual sex is by its very nature non-procreative, it violates the natural law and fundamental purpose of the sexual act. For this reason, a person who knowingly engages in these actions is deliberately breaking God’s divine mandate. And since they are choosing against Him, they are choosing against being with Him. And the state of being without God is being in Hell, literally. It is for this reason that the Church has affirmed for 2000 years
that we must obey God in all things, and encourage others to do so. So no, “more social liberalism” would not be “great for the Catholic Church.” Social liberalism, and its championing of the will of the individual, is utterly contrary to Church teaching. Socially Liberal Catholicism is not, in fact, Catholicism, despite what many bishops or priests might say. Divine moral law is by its very nature eternal, since it has its origin in an infinite, timeless God. It cannot be changed or molded by the times (a heresy called “Modernism”), and it has no care for popular opinion. Converts, who Jordan think will come en masse, will not actually be believing the true Faith within the Catholic religion, and will thus be putting their immortal souls at risk. It is for this reason that I must insist that the term “Catholic” be reserved only for those who believe in the entirety of what the Church teaches, and has taught, since its divine creator established it through Saint Peter.
Individualism and Catholicism By Luke Kusick
I
ndividualism and the elevation of its desires over anything else is the trademark of liberalism. From classical to neo-liberal, from progressive to cuckservative, the hallmark of liberalism is the emphasis of the individual. Whether one wants to be liberated from societal norms, from big government or from God, liberalism inherently places the emphasis on the individual. Either make or break for the rugged individualist. Why do I bring up the topic of individualism? In the last issue, an author wrote on the topic of left-leaning Catholicism and the idea that one can be Catholic and still support issues such as homosexual marriage, birth control, etc. While the Church teaches against and firmly rejects an individual’s ability to be a Catholic in good standing be supportive of such causes, we must examine why many Catholics believe that they can remain Catholic
editor@binghamtonreview.com
and agree with the Church. The honest truth is that most Catholics in America agree with the sentiment brought up by the author of “Left-Leaning Catholics Are a Thing”. According to Pew Poll research 67% of self-identified Catholics favor same-sex marriage in America. According to research done in 2016 by Pew Poll, 41% of Catholics believe contraception is a moral good and 48% believe it is not a moral issue at all. The numbers on homosexual relationships and abortion are not reflective of what the Church teaches either, so it appears on the surface that “Left-Leaning Catholics Are a Thing” is pointing out a phenomena that is real. However, how can a majority of self-identified Catholics disagree with the Church’s moral positions and still consider themselves a part of said Church? Has the Church recently turned back on these positions and am I just back in the Feudal Ages with
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
11
INDIVIDUALISM AND CATHOLICISM my beliefs? No. Rather, the rise of individualism in the Latin West has led to a tragic fate of the Church established by Christ himself. The focus on the individual caused the Protestant Reformation, a crisis that shook the Church in the 15th century. The focus on the individual caused the French Revolution in the 18th century. Now, individualism is rocking the Church again with modernism. Modernism is a heresy that again focuses on the individual, and we shall examine how the overwhelming majority of Catholics can reject the Church’s teachings and still consider themselves Catholic.
“...any attempt to cater to an earthly, temporary value or idea instead of what Christ’s Church teaches is ultimately deadly to one’s soul.” When discussing the social teachings of the Church, many in the “left-leaning” Catholicism crowd will often cite Pope Francis and how he has apparently embarked on a crusade of social justice, morally reforming the Church to fit the times. To them, he is the living embodiment of a “left-leaning” Catholic. However, let us take a look at Pope Francis back in 2010 when he was known as Cardinal Bergogilo. As Cardinal, he vocally opposed a bill in his home country of Argentina that would permit homo-
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM sexual marriage and adoption by homosexual parents. As reported by the Huffington Post, he stated, “Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.” The Pope’s harsh stance on homosexual marriages is clear in this statement. Pope Francis’s remarks clearly reflect that of the Church’s teaching on homosexual marriage, an ideological tenet since its inception. Pope Francis, while making claims such as “who am I to judge” with regards to homosexual people, has been nothing but clear in his statements about the act itself being morally wrong. Catholics are called to love the sinner and teach the sinner to go forth and sin no more. However, let us get back to the idea of being a left-leaning Catholic. To be a Catholic, one must submit to the Church. If one wants to pick and choose what they like and dislike about the Church and what doctrines they want to believe in and don’t, there are about 30,000 Protestant denominations you can choose from. The idea of being a left-leaning Catholic is about as absurd as being a right leaning Catholic. If you are a Catholic, you must accept the teachings of the Church. You cannot stray from the Church teachings or decide your own morals. In the past there were many heretics such as Arius, who would
deny theological teachings of the Church. Today, man cares less about theology and more about modernity. In this way, humanity continues to go against the Church, but this time instead of arguing over the issue of whether or not Jesus was fully divine or fully human, people decide to pick on his social teachings. I guess many people forget that Christ stated, “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to depart into hell.”(Matthew 5:29-30). Unlike a literal reading of the Bible, Jesus obviously did not mean for his followers to self-mutilate. The spirit of this passage is that any attempt to cater to an earthly, temporary value or idea instead of what Christ’s Church teaches is ultimately deadly to one’s soul. In conclusion, one cannot be a left-leaning Catholic, a right-leaning Catholic, a Catholic who likes abortion or a Catholic who wants female priests. One can only be a Catholic. If one calls themselves a Catholic yet disagrees with the Church, then one is not truly Catholic. With a lowercase “c”, the word means universal. The Church cannot have universality if its members can pick and choose which doctrines they believe in for the sake of adhering to modernism.
You’ll miss us over the summer, we know... Lucky for you, these new-fangled Internets have us right up in there! Check out www.binghamtonreview.com for any of our articles you may have missed, or www.issuu.com for full-color PDFs of all of our issues! Just search “Binghamton Review”. Interested in journalism? Afraid of speaking in class or with a professor? Tired of identity politics? Email edior@binghamtonreview.com to find out how you can get involved in the best on-campus publication! 12
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXX, Issue XIV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
DDLG RUINS THE PARTY AGAIN
DDLG Ruins the Party Again By Rebecca Goldstein
R
ecently, there’s been a “kink” that has become more widely known as DDLG. This abomination, which stands for “Daddy Dom Little Girl” is essentially pedophilia-lite and is super uncomfortable, abusive, and wildly problematic. Yes, I’m kinkshaming. No, I don’t care. I don’t need to be part of this specific community to speak about it, especially since these people have no problem going out in public as adults in children’s clothes, or going to the park and playing like children around other children. It is absolutely deplorable that they subject outsiders to their kink without their consent, so why should outsiders not be allowed to have an opinion on it? Essentially what DDLG is is that there’s a man (or a woman; the creepiness of DDLG doesn’t discriminate) who is the “dom” and sort of acts like a father figure in the relationship. They control the “little” and make rules for them, punish them, reward them, etc,. It’s literally like being a parent. They parent their significant other. A brief search on Tumblr shows the toxicity of the culture: the “little” tends to dress in little kid’s clothes like adultsize onesies, they get pacifiers, dia-
editor@binghamtonreview.com
pers, and stuffed animals, which they call “stuffies”, and they choose an age to act-- one of the most popular is the age range 2-5. They get into what’s called a “little space” where they escape from their real adult lives and act like children-- and that’s when their “daddies” or caregivers are most sexually attracted to them and they have intercourse. The little is supposed to follow the notion that “Daddy knows best and is always right” and is essentially not allowed to say no or they’re punished. Do you feel uncomfortable yet? It’s literally grown ass adult people CHOOSING to have sex with other adults that are DRESSED LIKE CHILDREN. Yes, they are two consenting adults, but the concerning part is the fact that an adult has to see a person acting and looking like a child in order to get aroused! Beyond that, it’s literal abuse to not be allowed to say no. There are various DDLG groups on Facebook and Tumblr featuring some heinous shit: role-play scripts using the term “princess parts” for a female’s vagina, “prince parts” for a penis, and honestly? A lot of the word “no”. These scripts feature the “little” speaking like a damn child, and there’s
an obscene amount of spanking. In one of these godforsaken role-plays, the “little” details humping a stuffed animal to her “daddy.” It’s thoroughly concerning that these people refer to their significant others as “mommy” and “daddy.” Even Freud would thoroughly disturbed. While BDSM and calling your partner “daddy” or something similar during sex is a bit more understandable, there is absolutely no reason and no justification behind acting and dressing like a child in order for sexual gratification. I refer to it as “pedo-lite” because while it’s not technically pedophilia since both parties are consenting adults, it’s damn near it since one of the parties is attempting to portray a child for sexual pleasure. DDLG is disgusting and deplorable: acting and looking like a child for sexytime is really gross, and while I’m obviously not going to police what’s going on in your bedrooms (as long as you don’t police my midget porn!), if you’re into this: your desires are bad and you should feel bad. Pedophilia is horrendous and this is basically covert, legal pedophilia. It is completely wrong.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
13
MEAL PLAN SCAMS
Meal Plan Scams
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
By Tommy Gagliano
C
ollege is a scam. You pay an absurd amount of money to pretend to pay attention in classes for five days a week, get shitfaced the remaining two days, and repeat. Over and over again, week after week, for four years. It’s an incredible waste of time and money, but society has you convinced that it’s worth receiving that piece of paper in the end, even though only 27% of college graduates have jobs related to their major (The Washington Post). I’m sure most college students disagree with me on this, or else they wouldn’t be here. Admittedly, I am exaggerating when I say college is a scam. Merriam-Webster defines a scam as “a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation.” When you pay for college, you know what you’re getting for your money, and there is (for the most part) no dishonesty or deception on the part of the university. However, there is one aspect of attending college
“The amount of money you throw away increases if you like to eat at the Marketplace, get coffee from Starbucks, or go to any of the other food locations on campus that aren’t discounted.”
14
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
at Binghamton University that absolutely fits the definition of “scam.” I’m talking, of course, about Binghamton’s meal plans. Students that live on campus are required to purchase a resident meal plan. These resident meal plans are composed of two parts - dining dollars and membership fee. There are six plans, labelled Plan A - Plan F, but all six plans are actually the exact same thing. They range in price from $2,072/semester to $2,766/ semester. However, all six meal plans have a $1,595/semester membership fee. The money you spend that does not go towards the membership fee is available to be spent at dining locations on campus in the form of “dining dollars.” Once you pay the membership fee, you can add as many dining dollars as you would like to your meal plan, so getting a bigger plan is pointless and is just a way to trick students into committing to give more money to the university. The standard meal plan that most students have is Plan C. Plan C costs $2,505/semester, with $1,595 covering the membership fee and $910 available to spend. The only benefits of having a meal plan are that you do not have to pay sales tax, and food purchased at the four dining halls (and only the dining halls, Marketplace, Subway, Dunkin Donuts, etc. are not included) are 45% cheaper. Even with these
“We already stole hundreds of dollars from you every semester with our ‘membership fees,’ but we let you carry over the dining dollars you didn’t spend to your next semester! Aren’t we so nice?” supposed benefits, you still end up paying significantly more with a meal plan than if you just bought all of your meals with cash or a credit card. Let’s assume you’re an average Binghamton student with Plan C, and that the $910 lasts you all semester with no money left over. Let’s also assume you have no taste buds and never get tired of eating the same shitty food over and over again, so you only eat at the dining halls. Since you have the Plan C meal plan, food for the semester costs you $910 dining dollars, or $2,505 actual dollars after you take the membership fee into account. If you had purchased the same food, but paid with cash or other non-meal plan methods, it would have cost you $1,769 (after sales tax). Congrats, you just wasted $736! The amount of money you throw away increases if you like to eat at the Marketplace, get coffee from Starbucks, or go to any of the other food locations on campus that aren’t discounted. In
Vol. XXX, Issue XIV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
“It would be fine if the purpose of [the previous page’s chart] was to try to convince people to eat at dining halls or something, but they present it as “evidence” of why meal plans are beneficial, which is incredibly dishonest.” order for the discounts to outweigh the membership fee and actually make the meal plan worth it, you would have to spend $1,700 dining dollars in one semester (which I’m not sure is even possible), and again that’s if you eat only at the dining halls. Binghamton University’s attempt to justify this on binghamton.sodexomyway.com is quite hilarious. They boast about how convenient it is to
editor@binghamtonreview.com
MEAL PLAN SCAMS
be able to use one card to pay for all of your meals, as if credit/debit cards don’t exist. They also promote the “different types of dining experiences” offered on campus, and how Binghamton has “food to fit your mood and lifestyle,” which does not make sense because all of these “dining experiences” also accept other forms of payment. But hey, at least your balance rolls over from one semester to the next. “We already stole hundreds of dollars from you every semester with our ‘membership fees,’ but we let you carry over the dining dollars you didn’t spend to your next semester! Aren’t we so nice?” And as if these attempts at justification weren’t insulting enough, they include the most pathetic and misleading chart I have ever seen on the previous page, to show the “significant discounts” you get with a resident meal plan. The chart compares prices for bagels, tomato soup, and chicken fingers. The
problem is, instead of comparing the price of these items with and without a meal plan, it compares the “resident price” of these foods at a dining hall to the “retail price” at Einstein Bros Bagels, Gardentoss, and Tully’s University. It would be fine if the purpose of it was to try to convince people to eat at dining halls or something, but they present it as “evidence” of why meal plans are beneficial, which is incredibly dishonest. You can’t compare a chicken finger basket at the dining hall to chicken fingers from Tully’s! They are two completely different things! Imagine if Walmart tried to sell a coupon book that offered half-off coupons for clothing to people by saying “With these coupons you can buy a plain white Walmart t-shirt for $4! That’s a great deal because a t-shirt from Gucci costs $600! Buy our coupon book now! It’s only $1,595!” Now all of this begs the question: what can I do to avoid wasting my money? If you live on campus, the answer is simple - nothing. Unless you live in Hillside or Susquehanna, residents are required to purchased a meal plan, and from the university’s perspective, that’s the most genius part of the scam. They’ve managed to come up with a system to steal hundreds (or even thousands) of dollars per semester from each student and try to hide and justify it by offering 45% discounts and making ridiculous charts. Even if someone figures it all out, it doesn’t matter because you have to buy it anyway. Your only escape is to live off-campus. Not only will you save on food, but you’ll also cut your cost of housing in half. But I suppose that’s a topic for another day.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
15