BINGHAMTON REVIEW Editor-in-Chief Contents
P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Founded 1987 • Volume XXXIII, Issue IV Tommy Gagliano
Managing Editor Matt Gagliano Copy Desk Chief Madeline Perez, Harold Rook
Business Manager Joe Badalamenti
Social Media Shitposter Sebastian Roman
Editor Emeritus
Patrick McAuliffe Jr.
Staff Writers
Jon Lizak, Dillon O’Toole, Will Anderson, Spencer Haynes
Contributors
Adam K. Garcia, Laura DeLuca, Arthur O’Sullivan
Special Thanks To:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network
BU UNDER INVESTIGATION
PAGE 10
by Tommy & Harold
3 Editorial by Tommy Gagliano 4 Press Watch by Our Staff 5 BU Transitioning to Remote Learning for Two by Tommy Gagliano Weeks 6 Cuomo Killed Grandma by Patrick McAuliffe 8 Trump vs. Biden vs... Jorgensen? Kanye? by Adam K. Garcia 9 New Music to Survive Midterms by Laura DeLuca by Harold Rook 12 Judging the Judges 13 An Un-Presidential Debate by Joe Badalamenti 14 Fighting Fire With Fire by Arthur O’Sullivan 15 Binghamton Review Staff Cringe Rankings by Our Staff
Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth. He Provides the Staples
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to editor@binghamtonreview.com 2
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXXIII, Issue IV
EDITORIAL Dear Readers,
From the Editor
U
h oh. It appears I may have jinxed us. In my last editorial, I wrote “... the daily surveillance testing has revealed zero new positive tests on a fairly consistent basis.” Whoops. We are now in a two-week “pause” period, where all classes have transitioned to a remote learning format. Does that mean that Joe Badalamenti’s prediction from our first issue was correct? To be honest, I’m not really sure. We didn’t lay out the ground rules particularly well. We made our predictions for how long we thought the semester would last before campus was shut down—we didn’t take the possibility of a two-week pause into consideration. If the “pause” becomes permanent and we never go back to in-person classes, I suppose Joe’s prediction of six weeks would be correct. However, what happens if we do return to in-person classes for the rest of the semester? Does that mean I win with my prediction that we would make it all the way through? What about if we return to in-person classes, then have another pause or permanent shutdown later? Too many possibilities we failed to acknowledge. While the future of the Fall 2020 semester is uncertain, the future of Binghamton Review is not. Regardless of what happens from here, we will still be sticking to our schedule and producing quality content for you to enjoy. We did it after the shutdown last Spring, and we’re prepared to do it again if necessary. Speaking of quality content, allow me to introduce you to the fourth issue of the semester! We have three new writers making their Binghamton Review debut in this issue, which is always exciting. Adam Garcia explores third-party options for voters that are sick of picking from the lesser of two evils, Arthur O’Sullivan discusses the issue with the Gravel Institute and the way they choose to convey information, and Laura DeLuca shares five new songs to help you get through your midterms. All three of them did a great job, and I look forward to seeing what else they come up with in the future. We also have contributions from Review mainstays. Patrick McAuliffe explores how Cuomo has handled COVID-19, Joe Badalamenti reflects on the first presidential debate, Harold Rook discusses the Supreme Court situation, I give an overview of the “pause,” and our staff collectively covers a recent investigation launched by the Department of Education regarding BU’s potential 1st Amendment violations. As always, thank you for reading. I hope the next time you read an editorial from me, in our October 28th issue, that we’ll be back to in-person classes.
Sincerely,
Tommy Gagliano Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run news magazine of conservative thought founded in 1987 at Binghamton University. 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 these 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.
Views expressed by writers do not necessarily represent the views of the publication as a whole. editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
3
CPampus resswatch “TikTok’s potential for political activism shouldn’t be underestimated” Madelaine Hastings, Pipe Dream, 10/5/20 “The video is simple, clever and relies on the slightly absurdist, awkward humor that has since become the platform’s signature...” I believe the word you’re looking for is “cringe.” “The public and the national media refuse to recognize the social media platform as an effective facilitator of social change, because of the app’s user demographic and design that is used to maximize the accessibility of video-making and posting.” Maybe also because 70% of its content consists of children repeating each other’s ten second dances and lip syncing to the same dozen songs? Kind of hard to be an “effective facilitator of social change” when that type of content is the most prevalent on your platform. “TikTok is more interested in the creation of unique content…” “Unique content.” You broke our Managing Editor with this line. After reading this all he said was “NO! No no no no no. Noooooooooo” before promptly collapsing at his desk. “More than half of all TikTok users have created and posted their own videos, contributing to the constant stream of fresh and diverse content flooding the application since its launch in 2017.” Congrats, you did it again. Our Managing Editor is now lying in a fetal position on the floor. “Fresh and diverse content?” Are you kidding me? “It doesn’t matter if your reaction is one of disgust, incredulity or admiration, because TikTok has still allowed one dancer to become internationally famous and embraced by a company whose enterprise value is beyond the threshold of our comprehension. It would be foolish to underestimate the power this app has to influence the na-
4
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Written by our Staff
We know you don’t read the other campus publications, so we did it for you. Original pieces are in quotes, our responses are in bold.
tional political dynamic as well.” First of all, my reaction is absolutely disgust, in case that wasn’t obvious. Second off, I don’t understand how TikTok having the power to make a dancer famous automatically means that it has the power to “influence the national political dynamic.” I highly doubt the same kids who are obsessed with TikTok dancers care at all about politics. And quite honestly, why would they? A large portion of TikTok users aren’t even old enough to vote! Just as one final note, our managing editor has been sent to the hospital and is currently foaming at the mouth. Good job! “Democrats must fight back against rushed attempts to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat” Seth Gully, Pipe Dream, 10/1/20 “We now stand on the edge of tipping an already skewed court to the extreme, cementing a conservative activist court for decades.” There have been plenty of rulings post-Kavanaugh which have not been in the favor of the Republicans. Supreme Court justices interpret the Constitution; they are not politicians. “Democrats should throw out every norm to prevent [a conservative court] from happening.” Refusing to follow the rules once your “team” starts losing is the biggest pussy shit ever. The rules have been in place for centuries. You don’t get to change them when they no longer benefit your political party. Sidenote: After this awful take, I better not see a “Trump is destroying our democracy by not explicitly stating he will accept the outcome of the election” argument from you in the future, Seth. “This is the same Republican party that has won the popular vote in only one of the past five Presidential elections, but stole the White House in three of those past five Presidential elections due to the way Electoral College votes
are distributed. This is the same Republican Party that forced Brett Kavanaugh through the confirmation process, despite the fact the Democratic senators who opposed the nomination represented millions more voters than the Republicans who voted in favor of him.” Here we go with the “the rules suck but only when my party is losing” crap again. The Electoral College exists to prevent states like New York and California from choosing the winner of the election each time. The same can be said about the existence of the Senate but for the Federal Legislature. “Senator Lindsey Graham famously said in 2016, in justifying the blocking of Garland’s appointment, that if a vacancy opened up in 2020 under a Republican president, that they should wait until after the election to fill it. He has now entirely contradicted his position and is actively pushing to fill Ginsburg’s old seat.” In 2016 Joe Biden said that the Senate should appoint Garland. However in 2020, Biden has stated that the Senate should wait until after the election. Republicans aren’t the only hypocritical politicians in Washington.
Vol. XXXIII, Issue IV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
BU TRANSITIONS TO REMOTE LEARNING FOR TWO WEEKS
BU Transitions to Remote Learning for Two Weeks By Tommy Gagliano
O
n the morning of October 7th, a B-line News Addition was sent to Binghamton University students, with a message from President Harvey Stenger. The note stated that, starting the following day (October 8th), all in-person classes would transition to remote learning for a two-week period. The announcement was not unexpected for most students; over the week or so prior, COVID cases had been steadily rising, both among the BU community and in Broome County as a whole. The number of total cases among students and faculty, as measured by surveillance testing, Decker Student Health Services testing, and self-reported tests, was very close to the New York State Higher Education limit of 100 (in a two-week period) that requires a mandatory pause. President Stenger stated in the email that “...although we are currently under the New York State Department of Health threshold, the University will move to a remote learning model that will help contain the virus and bring it down to
editor@binghamtonreview.com
an acceptable level.” In the email, Stenger specifies that this is not a shutdown, and that Binghamton University’s campus will remain open. Residence halls and libraries will remain open, medical and counseling services will still be available, and dining halls will be open for take-out only. All in-person athletic and club events will be cancelled during the two-week pause, and OCCT buses will follow the weekend schedule. While those oblivious to the situation may assume that the two-week pause is due to partying and other irresponsible behavior from students, evidence suggests that is not the case. BU was consistently reporting a very low number of positive tests throughout August and September. Things only started to change at the beginning of October, at the same time cases in Broome County as a whole began to spike. A September 28th tweet from Governor Cuomo suggests a possible cause, and it isn’t college students. He
cites three “clusters” in his tweet that he blames for the rising number of cases in the Southern Tier, one of which is “a pub in Broome County.” If this pub acted as a super-spreader, it is likely that Broome County brought the virus to the students, rather than the other way around. President Stenger was adamant that the transition to remote learning will be temporary, though only time will tell what will happen on October 22nd, when the two-week pause comes to an end. “We remain committed to in-person instruction for the fall semester and will work to make our transition back to in-person activities as quickly as we can under Department of Health guidelines while ensuring the safety of students, faculty and staff,” he said in his B-line message. “This is an unfortunate bump in the road. However, it is part of the necessary new reality that we are living in. We will encounter more of these and we will get through them if we work together.”
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
5
CUOMO KILLED GRANDMA... AND NEW YORK
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Cuomo Killed Grandma... and New York By Patrick McAuliffe
I’ve tried to steer clear of COVID-centric analysis so far this semester. It’s on everyone’s minds and every news platform, so if you aren’t at least partially aware of societal expectations and new information by now, you must be more closed off from society than Jared Leto when he was living as a hermit in mid-March. Our own school was finally closed last Wednesday due to rising local cases. However, it would be remiss of a publication that values liberty and hates authoritarianism to not shed a light on the tyranny and ineptitude plaguing our own state during this crisis. I’m talking about every white middle-aged mom on Twitter’s favorite silver fox: Governor Andrew Cuomo. This Italian Stallion not only holds the governorship to the state with the highest number of COVID deaths, he also has a onetrack mind to hold his newfound executive power in spite of both rational limits and methods for COVID recovery seen elsewhere in these fifty-nifty United States. It is important to establish a general timeline of New York’s response to COVID in order to break down where exactly Big Fredo went wrong. According to the New York Times, customs officials in New York’s JFK Airport did not ask returning US citizens from Europe whether they had been to COVID hotspots; by the end of February, Italy already had thousands of COVID cases and no returning travelers were asked about whether they
6
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
had been in these areas. March 1st saw the first confirmed COVID case in New York, a woman in Manhattan, but a lawyer from New Rochelle that was confirmed on March 2nd was the main catalyst in widely spreading the virus in Westchester County and New York City over the course of several prior non-quarantined days. By March 6th, New York had 44 cases, spreading in the city and entering Long Island for the first time (the previous day, Mayor Bill de Blasio told citizens of NYC
“For years, Big Fredo has enjoyed unprecedented gubernatorial power, and upstate New York has long seen him for the authoritarian that he is.” to go about their lives and that public transit was safe). March 11th saw the closure of CUNY and SUNY schools by order of Governor Cuomo, as well as the first confirmed case in Monroe County and all of Western New York. On March 15th, New York had three confirmed COVID deaths, and by March 16th, New York had around 21,000 cases (with about 12,300 of those cases in New York City, according to the New York Post). On March 20th, Cuomo signed a statewide stay-at-home executive order to close all nonessential businesses and to mandate that all activities involving leaving one’s home for any reason other than providing essential services are illegal. This order expired on May 15th, when regions that met certain requirements - declines in positive cases, hospitalizations, available hospital and ICU beds, among others - could move to a Phase 1 reopening. Each phase requires regions of New York to meet these conditions over a 14-day period, and each phase specifies certain industries that could open at each phase. New York City proved
to be the slowest to reopen at every phase. Gyms were permitted to open on August 17th via executive order, contingent on implementing proper social distancing policies and adequate sanitizing. August 18th’s executive order did not permit certain businesses to open at all, primarily venues with large capacities (arenas, nightclubs, etc.). Face masks in public were made mandatory under the stay-at-home order of March 20th, and mandated again on April 15th, with the caveat that they need to be worn “if social distancing is not possible”. Our Fearless Leader held daily briefings on the state of COVID’s spread in New York from March 2nd to June 19th, when he began spreading them out over several days. On occasion, if he felt that the situation demanded it, he would hold consecutive daily briefings. He has insisted on using the advice of health experts and analysis of data on COVID’s spread to inform his decisions on what mandates he would enact. However, it flies in the face of reason to implement the same mandates for both New York City and Binghamton, or Rochester, or any other part of the state with nowhere near the population density of the largest city in the country. It flies in the face of reason to close indoor dining and nonessential businesses for both New York City (213,646 cumulative cases on June 12th) and Broome County (644 cumulative cases on June 12th). Whether in the city or upstate - which is, in this writer’s humble opinion, above the latitude line where the Southern Tier meets the Pennsylvania border - small businesses keep our economy moving. According to the New York Times, 98% of New York City’s employers are small businesses (“small business” is here defined as having fewer than 500 employees), and around 80,000 have closed permanently, out of roughly 240,000. On June 6th, Cuomo bragged that “we didn’t just flatten the curve,
Vol. XXXIII, Issue IV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM we bent the curve”, yet New York City and many other places in the state remained locked down for several more weeks. Revenue for the state plummeted under the lockdowns, as small businesses shut their doors for good and the wealthy city-dwellers fled for greener pastures upstate or down south. Big Fredo pathetically begged for their return in early August, claiming he’ll “buy [them] a drink!” if they came back to the city. Which closed bar he would treat his wealthy cash cows to is still unanswered, and they better not even think of getting chicken wings with their beverage. The fact that our state and our livelihoods suffered under the painfully slow six-month process of reopening isn’t tragic enough; the fact that New York twists its coronavirus numbers to appear to be doing well only adds to the madness. Nursing home-related COVID deaths in New York are counted by both confirmed and suspected cases. On March 25th, Cuomo issued a mandate forcing nursing homes to accept positive coronavirus patients, most likely due to the quickly-deteriorating number of hospital beds for COVID patients at the time. This mandate was repealed on May 10th. By August 11th, New York had around 6,600 COVID-related deaths in nursing homes, but according to the Washington Post, the number of empty nursing home beds is 13,000 beds higher than expected. Some of this gap is probably
editor@binghamtonreview.com
CUOMO KILLED GRANDMA... AND NEW YORK due to patients who recovered and left the nursing home, but it also suggests that the death toll could be nearly double the reported numbers. WaPo reports that New York only counts nursing home deaths by those that died on nursing home property, and not those that died in hospitals after being transported to them. The icing on the abhorrent cake of unclear data and political posturing is that Cuomo has been quick to deflect questions about these cases and deaths by pointing to how badly other states were doing. He even had the audacity at the end of September, in a radio interview with Finger Lakes News Radio, to condescendingly assert that forcing nursing homes to take COVID patients “never happened”, claiming that hospitals have had more than enough beds and that his March 25th mandate simply didn’t exist. Already one of the highest in the country, the deaths from New York nursing homes could be twice as much as the King claims they are.
“It seems evident, then, that Democratic governors locked down their states harder, and, at the time of this writing, seem to be doing no better than their Republican counterparts.” COVID cases and deaths in red counties and states have been increasing, per capita, in the last few months, but they still rank below blue counties and states, according to the New York Times. Red states have been quicker to open and less strict on mask mandates for their citizens, which runs counter to the tight-fisted policies of blue areas. It should be noted that Democratic counties and states have a much higher population density than Republican ones, but red states also include places like Texas and Florida with highly populated cities. It seems evident, then, that Democratic governors locked down their states harder, and, at the time of this writing, seem to be doing no better than their Republican counterparts. Another notable
criticism of Cuomo and Mayor De Blasio, always quick to legislate from the executive branch, is the failure to effectively communicate and work with local populations in the New York metropolitan area, as is most evident in their handling of the outbreaks among the Jewish Hasidic communities downstate. Rather than finding ways to communicate the importance of social distancing and sanitization, their responses have been heavy-handed and broad-sweeping, shutting down zip codes based on their rising COVID cases and completely ignoring the fact that residents of said zip codes can travel elsewhere for their desired activities. They seem to have no interest in working with communities directly in stopping the spread, because their only language appears to be top-down threats of legally-sanctioned violence. I have been fortunate enough to work in an “essential” industry, and my livelihood has been only mildly affected through the near-constant piece of layered cloth on my face and the occasional shutdowns of my major industrial customer. Despite this, I can still see the damage that Big Fredo’s excruciatingly slow process of reopening has caused both our local area and our state at large. What irks me more than the lockdowns and ever-present flirting with the threat of returning to them, however, is that Governor Cuomo is posturing as a leader based in science, data, and fact - and that people are eating it up like their non-meal chicken wings. In reality, New York is still among the states with the highest cases and deaths, and their numbers could be even higher if Cuomo is willing to lie about his state’s nursing home deaths. He paints the entire state with the same broad brush as New York City, which will probably never financially recover from this. For years, Big Fredo has enjoyed unprecedented gubernatorial power, and upstate New York has long seen him for the authoritarian that he is. I applaud those with the financial resources to leave the state, both during this pandemic and in years prior. People are sick and tired of living here, and Cuomo will have nobody to blame but himself when the population of his state has moved on.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
7
TRUMP VS. BIDEN VS... JORGENSEN? KANYE?
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Trump vs. Biden vs... Jorgensen? Kanye? By Adam K. Garcia
B
elieve it or not, it’s been four years and we are caught yet again in another historical presidential election. President Trump is up for re-election and his opponent is Joseph Biden, the 77-year-old former Vice President under the Obama administration. Just how it was in 2016, many voters feel conflicted about their choices for President. The progressive faction (the Bernie Bros of the world) has expressed discontent yet again with the Democratic nominee after their candidate Bernie Sanders lost the nomination (again). Progressives feel that Joe Biden is “too moderate” and won’t fight for far-left values. Although Republicans are more unified behind their candidate, many express discontent with Trump, especially with his handling of the COVID-19 crisis. Many Americans are left voting for the “lesser of two evils” candidate. This leaves us with a question: what about third-party candidates? Why don’t they receive more media coverage? Why don’t any of them ever win elected office? Third-party candidates for president are often ignored. They usually receive far fewer media coverage than major-party candidates and voting third-party is often viewed as a “wasted vote.” Many reasons can be attributed to this, such as the current plurality voting system. Rank-choice voting has become an increasingly popular system to implement among cities and states, but that’s for another article. Today, I’m going to explain who the third-party contenders are and what they stand for. Some candidates (like Yeezy, unfortunately) don’t have ballot access in NY, but it’s important to inform people about who ALL of their candidates are for president (despite them having zero chance of winning in this election—sorry). First up is Jo Jorgensen/Spike Cohen (Libertarian): I’m gonna be real, the Libertarians would’ve gotten
8
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
more media coverage if Rep. Justin Amash was their nominee. But instead, we are greeted by Clemson University lecturer Jo Jorgensen and her running mate, podcaster Spike Cohen. Jorgensen believes in investment in nuclear energy, free and open trade, and smaller government. She also believes in no gun regulation, ending wars overseas, legalization of marijuana, and no government funding of abortion. Although they don’t have a shot at winning in this current political climate, there are some incentives for voting libertarian. The party is the third-largest in the United States and if they win more than 5% of the popular vote, they can receive benefits, such as public funding, more media coverage, and even a possible spot on the debate stage alongside the Democrats and Republicans. They are on the ballot in NY so make your choices wisely!
Next, we have Howie Hawkins/ Angela Walker (Green): Kinda like Bernie, kinda not, Hawkins is the candidate that satisfies progressives’ wishes without having the ability to win (hey, just like Bernie!) Hawkins, the co-founder of the Green Party, believes in eco-socialism, open borders, socialist-based economy, taxes for the rich, medicare-for-all, you get the
picture. His running mate is a former bus driver who dropped out of college, stating she could make more money as a bus driver than a teacher. Yay? Anyways, they are on the ballot in NY as well, so have fun with that. Then we have good old Brian T. Carroll/Amar Patel (American Solidarity): To sum it up, Brian Carroll is a Christian socialist with a Donegal beard. Unfortunately, he has no ballot access in NY; however, you can still write him in (though I think Kanye would be a better use of a vote). Surprisingly enough, I know a Brian Carroll supporter. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Brock Pierce (Independent) was in the Mighty Ducks movie from the 1990s! Oh, and he’s also running as an Independent and happens to be on the ballot in NY. Weird how Kanye isn’t though… Kanye “Yeezy” West/Michelle Tidball (Independent): “I ALMOST KILLED MY DAUGHTER” - Kanye 2020. That’s about all. Sadly no ballot access in NY.
All jokes aside, unless there is a change to our voting system, third-party candidates face a disadvantage in presidential elections. But for right now, I can inform you about the other candidates that happen to exist. Happy voting!
Vol. XXXIII, Issue IV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
NEW MUSIC TO SURVIVE MIDTERMS
New Music to Survive Midterms By Laura DeLuca
I
think we can all agree that this semester is extraordinarily challenging. Between COVID-19 and the upcoming election, it feels like we are all surviving 10 simultaneous apocalypses. On top of all of that, midterms are quickly approaching. Here are 5 new tracks ranging from rap to R&B to get you through it. 1. “Siri” -- Lil Wayne Anyone who knows me would not be surprised that a recent drop by Lil Wayne would be my #1 pick. Lil Wayne dropped Tha Carter 5 (Deluxe) on September 25, 2020. This was one of the bonus tracks. Per usual, there is a clear, entertaining (and undeniably humorous) storyline here, where Lil Wayne accuses Siri of trying to seduce him: “Cause I can’t trust my iPhone, I can’t trust my SIM card / I got Siri talkin’ dirty to me.” He later incessantly accuses Siri of being “the feds” -- although this is funny, I think we can all agree based on the near-universal experience of having Instagram and Facebook ads show us things we were just talking about that there is some sort of truth to this. Although the topic is undeniably absurd, Lil Wayne is quite clever in his diction: “Haters praying for my downfall, at least they’re religious.” This is my FAVORITE line, praising his haters for implying that they are religious. If you appreciate lyrics that are simultaneously clever and hilarious, I recommend this song. 2. “RIP Luv” -- 21 Savage I know what you’re thinking: “21 Savage, really? He’s trash.” He may be trash. But I love his trash. Don’t let this choice deter you from this playlist. I promise, it’s worth sticking around for. This isn’t my favorite 21 Savage song, but it is certainly catchy. He released SAVAGE MODE II with Metro Boomin on October 2nd. The chorus is to a chill, slow beat as he expresses his disillusionment with regard to romance: “Rest
editor@binghamtonreview.com
in peace to love, I gave up a long time ago / Hard times, everybody left, I’m the one you counted on / My shoulder took a lot of tears, woulda swore it was a fountain on / I be cryin’ on the inside and smilin’ when the cameras on.” Although his other “trap” songs may have some awful, repetitive lyrics, I find his somber songs to be relaxing and enjoyable. Not to mention, Morgan Freeman is featured as the outro: “Truly genuine love never really dies / But lust, infatuation, and unrevealed attraction are all things that over time rarely survive.” Simply iconic. 3. “Oshun” -- Spillage Village, EARTHGANG, and 6LACK ft. Jurdan Bryant On September 25, Spilligion was dropped by Spillage Village, JID, and EARTHGANG. This song is chill and catchy, separating rap verses with a catchy, singsongy chorus. This song is a clever meshing of rap and R&B elements. Verse 2 by Doctur Dot has some lyrics I particularly enjoy: “I just hope you never leave me hopeless / People talkin’ gossip, slander, tryna hurt your reputation / What they say don’t matter, they don’t know us.” I think there’s something nice about the sentiment being conveyed: at the end of the day, if you are happy with your partner, that is all that matters, because no one knows your relationship better than you do. My favorite line in this song comes later, in verse 3 as sung by Jurdan Bryant: “This how it s’posed to be, I think my soul agree / She make my soul eclipse.” It’s definitely refreshing to have some poetic elements incorporated into a rap song; the idea that a woman eclipses his soul in a way that feels just right is a very profound idea, perhaps suggesting that she takes over his earthly desires and betters him as a man. 4. “Stuck on You” -- Giveon Here’s another one for my R&B fans. Giveon just dropped an EP,
When it’s All Said and Done on October 2nd. This song is poignant, with profound lyrics and a beautiful piano progression in the background. My favorite piece of the chorus has to be: “It took some time but I realized / You do me wrong, but it feels right.” I think we’ve all been in toxic relationships and situations in which you know in your heart that the circumstances shouldn’t be happening, even if you are willing to suffer for someone else. He conveys this beautifully. 5. “Things Change” -- Bryson Tiller Finally, Bryson Tiller released ANNIVERSARY on October 2nd, on the 5th anniversary of his album TRAP SOUL. “Things Change” is one of the more catchy, upbeat R&B songs on this album. Tiller ends the song with the line: “But you ain’t slowin’ me down either way” which is such a powerful statement, refusing to let a tumultuous relationship with a woman take over his emotions and hold him back from success in life. If you’re looking for some new R&B, I highly recommend this song. Ultimately, wherever you are, I hope you’re enduring the apocalypses and surviving midterms as best as you can. I hope the undeniable wit of Lil Wayne (don’t fight me on this), the iconic trash that is the music of 21 Savage (I’ll admit it, it’s trash), the catchy tunes of Spillage Village, JID, and EARTHGANG, the soothing voice of Giveon, and the chill melodies of Bryson Tiller help you get through this insane time in history (and stressful time in school).
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
9
BU UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR ALLEGED FREE SPEECH VIOLATIONS
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
BU Under Investigation for Alleged Free Speech Violations By Tommy Gagliano & Harold Rook
O
n September 15th, 2020, the United States Department of Education published a letter informing Binghamton University and President Harvey Stenger that a federal investigation into the University had been launched. The notice states that there “seems to be evidence suggesting Binghamton selectively applies its stated policies and procedures to discriminate against students based on the content of their speech and their decision to associate with groups such as the College Republicans and Young Americans for Freedom/Young America’s Foundation.” The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether or not the conduct of the university “violated applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual provisions,” and whether or not Binghamton misled students, parents, and consumers with their promises to protect First Amendment rights. Ultimately, the investigation is to decide if Binghamton University operates under a policy that selectively enforces the right to freedom of speech for its students. The investigation is focused on events that occurred on Binghamton University’s campus between November 14th and November 19th, 2019. At around 10 AM on November 14th, College Republicans and the Binghamton chapter of Turning Point USA set up tables next to each other on the “Spine” (a central walkway on campus). TPUSA President Lacey Kestecher and then-College Republicans President John Restuccia explained to us when we first covered the incident that the two groups planned to “table” next to each other, but to do so for different purposes. College Republicans handed out hot chocolate and fliers to promote their upcoming “Trump, Tariffs, Trade Wars” event featuring Dr. Arthur Laffer, while TPUSA set up a variety of posters and buttons to promote their organization. Things were calm at first, with discussions between tablets and passing students being relatively cor-
10
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
dial. However, at 2 p.m. tensions began to rise as large groups of students approached the tabling groups, becoming more and more aggressive. Within a span of 20 minutes, a mob of 200 or more students formed, yelling obscenities, stealing promotional materials, damaging property, and attempting to intimidate the members of College Republicans and Turning Point USA. The letter from the Department of Education claims that protesters may have been acting “pursuant to a conspiracy” to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate the College Republicans in the free exercise or enjoyment of their First Amendment rights” on November 14th. They cite GroupMe messages sent to massive student group chats that Binghamton Review obtained and published to support this, mischaracterizing the messages as “social media messages,” likely due to their source, New York Post, making the same mischaracterization. The messages, such as “yeah there’s not that many but fuck em [sic] up anyways,” were designed to incite harassment and violence, and were sent to a Hinman group chat of over 400 students, a group chat called “The Culture” which contains over 1500 students, and possibly more Binghamton groups. It is no coincidence that the mob got as large as it did, as quickly as it did. The letter
also claims that University police did little to shut down the mob or prevent harassment of club members. This, the Department of Education surmises, amounts to what could legally be considered conspiracy by the University to threaten and intimidate the students involved in tabling. On November 18th, 2019, Dr. Arthur Laffer was scheduled to give his talk on economics—the same one that College Republicans was promoting on the 14th. Earlier that day, Vice President Brian Rose issued a statement about the November 14th events that the Department of Education claims “blam[ed] College Republicans,” and “never mentioned the First Amendment.” Rose also claims that groups were attempting to be “provocative” with gun-imagery on the day of the Santa Clarita school shooting. The shooting only happened 30 minutes before the two groups set up, and both groups had no knowledge of the incident. Also prior to Dr. Laffer’s scheduled lecture time that day, Binghamton University’s College Progressives shared images on social media, asking people to “show up, speak out, and disrupt” the event, and mentioned that PLOT (Progressive Leaders of Tomorrow) was behind the protest. Additionally, College Progressive falsely claimed that TPUSA was the party responsible for setting up the Laffer event. TPUSA was not involved in the Art Laffer speaking event. Binghamton Review published screenshots of Instagram posts from the club during our initial coverage of the incident. Interestingly, it was known in advance by College Republicans, YAF, and the Binghamton administration that leftist groups planned to disrupt the event. To placate this, YAF hired a security firm to provide Dr. Laffer with protection, should the event devolve into chaos. Moreover, the general counsel for YAF, Mark Trammell, attempted to contact Binghamton University’s Attorney, Barbara Scarlett,
Vol. XXXIII, Issue IV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM with the goal of gaining assurances that the University would protect their client’s right to freedom of speech, in conjunction with the school’s written policy. No such assurance was ever given by Scarlett. Additionally, the University Police Department (UPD) was made aware of the plans by these campus groups to disrupt the event. However, the UPD moved the lecture to a different location to provide a quicker exit route for Dr. Laffer, while also providing an adjacent lecture hall for the protestors, much to the displeasure of the College Republicans and YAF. Following these conditions, College Republicans leveled that such accommodations would only serve to allow these protestors to organize and disrupt the event, and requested that the University release a statement urging the protection of Dr. Laffer’s free speech and remove the accommodations. The University refused. The UPD even went so far as to tell Dr. Laffer to have his own event canceled in fear that the disruption would take place. Dr. Laffer decided to continue on with the event. A plethora of students arrived well before the event’s 7:30 start time, filling the room as soon as the doors opened. Many attendees were wearing black face masks (before COVID made them normal), red armbands, and/ or PLOT sweatshirts. At 7:30, John Restuccia took the mic to introduce Dr. Laffer, who was able to get through two and a half sentences before being interrupted by a protester. The protester was then brought a megaphone, which he used to continue yelling at Dr. Laffer. The situation escalated, with a vast majority of the individuals in the room joining the protest, and Dr. Laffer was escorted out of the room through the Lecture Hall basement. According to the Department of Education, “instead of making a good faith effort to restore order and allow the lecture to continue, university police ordered Dr’ Laffer’s removal…” The Department of Education letter provides a link to footage recorded by Binghamton Review staff and uploaded to the Binghamton Review YouTube channel to show an accurate portrayal of the night’s events. What ended up
editor@binghamtonreview.com
BU UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR ALLEGED FREE SPEECH VIOLATIONS happening was a foregone conclusion: the talk was completely shut down, and protestors took the time to air what they felt were grievances against them outside the lecture hall that they just stormed. The claims being investigated rely not on the actions of students, but on the way the University responded to those actions. Vice President Rose’s statement on the 18th, UPD’s failure to act in either situation, and the administration’s failure to put protections in place for Dr. Laffer’s lecture despite having knowledge that a protest was planned are among the most important indictments against Binghamton University. The Department of Education also notes that no students involved with organizing the disruptions or the college organizations responsible for facilitating the protest faced any form of official punishment. On the contrary, College Republicans were the group the University targeted for disciplinary action, having their club suspended for not obtaining permission to table on the Spine. This investigation comes just two months after a lawsuit was filed against BU. On July 21st, 2020, Young America’s Foundation (YAF), Binghamton University College Republicans, and College Republicans President Jon Lizak filed a federal lawsuit against Binghamton University and three of its administrators, College Progressives, and PLOT, over the alleged targeting of conservative groups and failure by the University to protect the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of students. Binghamton Review has pre-
viously covered the allegations made within the lawsuit, which is discussed in greater detail on the Binghamton Review website. In short, the lawsuit claims that Binghamton University, College Progressives, and PLOT engaged in what amounts to conspiracy to shut down specific political viewpoints, in compliance with the Speech Suppression Policy. This, YAF argues, makes Binghamton University a guilty actor in the events that followed, essentially permitting such actions to occur without any recourse. The letter opines that the motives behind the actions taken by the administration are not entirely clear. Whether the actions demonstrated by the University were a result of clear political bias, administrative incompetence in handling political pressure, or an indifference to enforcing written procedure is unknown. To the Department of Education, it makes no difference; the lack of taking clear, decisive action to protect students’ freedom of speech is indicative of misleading the public on the University’s commitment to the First Amendment. The resultant investigation that will take place in spite of the current COVID pandemic. If the Department of Education finds enough reason to believe that Binghamton has violated its commitment to ideals of free speech, the administration may be required to undergo proceedings to discuss their actions. Regardless, the investigation will present a challenge for the University, and the implications that this battle will have on free speech for college students could be enormous.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
11
JUDGING THE JUDGES
Judging the Judges
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
By Harold Rook
W
elp, its election season, and do you know what that means? Yep, time to be bombarded with ad after ad about how Donald Trump or Joe Biden are either the coming Messiah or worse than Saddam Hussein! Maybe if you’re astute with the political goings-on, you may even be following local and Congressional races across the country. Of course, if you are like me, you’re about to see your preferred presidential candidate Jo Jorgenson get 5% of the total vote, with very few candidates in your local races sharing your goals for the country. However, there is another race going on, although we certainly get no vote in the matter; recently, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg passed away, leaving an open seat. And, within the following week, we already have a replacement nominated by Trump: Amy Coney Barrett. Needless to say, this rather hasty nomination has everyone spinning, leading to questions of Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s legacy and Barrett’s ascension. What are the political implications of this nomination? First, a bit of history on Justice Ginsberg. Ginsburg first began her career working under a clerkship in New York, eventually rising through the ranks to teach constitutional law at Rutgers Law School. Following a brief stint working in Sweden, Ginsburg would challenge many notions held in the 1960s regarding gender inequality, becoming the first female tenured professor of law at Columbia Law School, making it her goal to expand women’s rights across the United States. One of her first moves to do this was by creating the Women’s Rights Project, gaining enough attention to have President Jimmy Carter position her as a judge in the US Court of Appeals in the D.C. circuit. Here, through work on cases such as Weinberg vs. Wiesenfeld, Ginsburg began championing the elimination of discrimination of women in public sectors such as social security, gaining her the attention of President Bill Clinton. Impressed
12
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
by her abilities, and having an empty justice seat thanks to the retirement of Kennedy-era justice Byron White, Clinton would officially grant Ginsburg the judicial robes on August 3rd, 1993. Her time on the bench can best be described as the dissonant voice from a liberal perspective; though nominated by President Bill Clinton, Ginsberg soon found herself often in the minority following the ascension of conservative colleagues to the Court. One example of this was through her dissent opinion of Ledbetter vs. Goodyear, arguing that those subjected to employment discrimination should not face limits to back pay. Additionally, she also dissented in the decision of Bush vs. Gore, the decision that decided the fate of the 2000 election. In the dissent statement, Ginsburg defied majority opinion and argued for the need to recognize “our system of dual sovereignty,” referring to the Florida Supreme Court. Mind you, though these dissents certainly were powerful, they didn’t actually change the court decision, and weren’t without detractors. For example, her dissent regarding Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby is one that I vehemently disagree with (the decision of the case was that specific for-profit companies can refuse to cover birth control for religious reasons. She asked: “Where does it stop?” I answer: “To the point of personal responsibility,” i.e. having sex). All this aside, she certainly was America’s Iron Lady, being notoriously tough and surviving multiple bouts of cancer. Sadly, pancreatic cancer killed
the justice on September 18th, 2020, cementing her status as the dissident liberal justice. Reaction to the Notorious RBG’s death has reverberated across the political spectrum and, if for a brief moment, unanimous in its sorrow for this loss. Were some of the reactions overthe-top in how they lamented over the death of Ginsberg? To some extent, yes; the now viral reaction on TikTok by @distelthirst comes off as out-oftouch for simply saying that Ginsburg had to make it to 2021, ignoring her obvious health complications. Still, there is a very good reason for this reaction; within one week of her departure, Trump officially announced his nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. Best described as one of late Justice Antonin Scalia’s proteges, Barrett considers herself to be a constitutional originalist, believing in the principles behind the Constitution. Barrett has also come under fire for those that question her Catholic beliefs, suspecting that this may hinder her judgement. Most importantly, however, are her beliefs in upholding precedents in spite of her own personal views on the subject, such as Roe vs. Wade. Confirming a judge is a twostep process, however. If you recall the death of Antonin Scalia, you may remember what happened: Obama called for Merrick Garland to fill the void, the Republican majority in the Senate refused to confirm, and then Trump was elected. Now, the shoe is on the other foot; Mitch McConnell now asks for the speedy introduction of Barrett to the bench, while Democrats argue that the American people should decide through the election. Et tu, hypocrita? Of course, it’s not like the Democrats can do much anyway; Republicans control both the executive branch and Senate, making this decision all but confirmed. This political firefight is likely to become more inflamed as time goes on, but, in all likelihood, it will be best to remember RBG and say hello to Barrett.
Vol. XXXIII, Issue IV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
AN UN-PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
An Un-Presidential Debate By Joe Badalamenti
A
h, the presidential debates, the time where nominees from major parties come together to have a civil discussion on the issues that matter to voters. Surely this year’s nominees, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, could come to the table and show that they have what it takes to hold the highest office in America right? WRONG! After watching the first presidential debate of 2020, I mainly felt disappointed. Nearly 250 years after the founding of the American Republic, these two are the best candidates we have to offer? According to The Hill, ratings for this debate were down by 65%. Given the terrible performance, it’s no wonder why TV ratings were this low. In polite terms, the Presidential debate was a dumpster fire. There were constant interruptions from each candidate, which made it hard to hear anything. Most of the interruptions came from Trump, which wasn’t exactly unexpected. Most of his supporters have grown accustomed to this behavior. There were also a lot of bad arguments. There was name calling, emotional appeal, and even arguing with the moderator. If the candidates were not calling their opponent a loser, they were probably repeating the same point without engaging with their opponent’s argument at all, that is, if they didn’t dodge the question in the first place. Since this was a political event, you can always count on the mainstream media to make some absurd tribal claim. This time, it was to claim that Trump or Biden did not denounce racism or violence, respectively. It’s pretty clear that both candidates have
editor@binghamtonreview.com
denounced these things in some way, shape, or form, and those who claim otherwise are intentionally spreading misinformation. In terms of moderation, Chris Wallace tried to be impartial, but he was reluctant to push Biden on certain issues as we will see later on. Aside from the unprofessionalism of the debate, each candidate did give their take on several current issues. The first topic was the Supreme Court. Trump stated that he has a responsibility to appoint the next justice while Biden cited the fact that many citizens have already cast votes for this current election. While Biden chose not to attack the character of Trump’s appointee (unlike many on Twitter), he did attack her supposed stance on health care. It’s also worth mentioning that Biden did not say whether or not he would pack the court if elected. The economy was another big topic. Trump’s big feat was that he was able to bring back Big Ten football. Thank you, Trump, very cool! Biden criticized the lack of a COVID plan by the Trump administration and expressed interest in creating a plan for recovery. While making a plan does seem very efficient, many of the current plans involved lockdowns. Another interesting topic was Trump’s decision to ban Critical Race Theory training for government departments. It was in fact very misleading that both Wallace and Biden referred to these training sessions as “racial sensitivity” training. Considering many of these Critical Race theorists hold pretty radical ideas, such as the proposal to implement discrimination by Ibram X. Kendi, it’s clear that there’s more going on here than just racial sensitivity. The final topic of the debate was about the integrity of the election. In this segment, Trump repeatedly dodged the question of whether he will allow a peaceful transfer of power. While the entirety of the GOP has confirmed that they will allow this transfer, dodging the question only makes Trump look bad. As one can see, whenever a candi-
date dodges a question it just ends up looking bad for their image. There are a number of ways that the presidential debates could improve. One requested change is the introduction of third party candidates to the field. The addition of third party candidates such as Jo Jorgenson from the Libertarian Party or Howie Hawkens from the Green Party could lead to some significant changes. First off, there would be more discussion of policy solutions. In the current system, candidates show very little transparency so long as they can appeal to their base or appear better than their opponent. If additional candidates were added, then each nominee would need to put in more effort to come off as not an ok choice but a great choice. After all, it’s much harder to appeal to a certain demographic when multiple candidates have similarly appealing ideas. Moreover, since there are more candidates, each one would have relatively less time to speak. This would make personal attacks costly as it wouldn’t have an effect on the other candidates. Finally, if this change were to be made it would likely come from a different organization. The mainstream media has been very reluctant to include third party candidates in the debates. However, if a different organization were to hold the debates with third party candidates, then it would likely come with a more impartial moderation staff. Though most of these changes seem like a pipe dream given the tight grip of the mainstream media on the culture, if enough people become disillusioned by the current system, then this dream may become a reality.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
13
FIGHTING FIRE WITH FIRE: THE GRAVEL INSTITUTE
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Fighting Fire With Fire: The Gravel Institute By Arthur O’Sullivan
B
ehold, The Gravel Institute! Named after the nonagenarian former maverick senator, it is now the so-called “PragerU for leftists.” Debuting on September 28th, The Gravel Institute launched two videos: one a brief introduction to the Institute (why PragerU is bad and why they are good), and the other a five minute video asking “Is Big Government Really the Problem?” Both launched to modest success, earning tens of thousands of views at time of writing (and it’s only growing), with a largely positive reception to each… and that’s a bad thing. For those not paying attention, PragerU is not a real university, but rather a non-profit organization founded by and named after conservative radio-show host Dennis Prager. PragerU creates short, slick videos hosted by “the greatest minds in the world,” as Prager says, who often argue in favor of various conservative or libertarian ideas. Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t like PragerU. Their short videos often oversimplify, misrepresent, or sensationalize for the sake of engagement, especially as it became popular. It is, however, effective at spreading standard conservative views, especially to young people. Since its inception, PragerU has received almost 3 billion lifetime views, with 1 out of 3 Americans online having seen one of their videos, and roughly 7 out of 10 of those people report having their mind changed about an issue, according to their own annual report. Seeing the effectiveness of the PragerU formula, The Gravel Institute (formerly a progressive think-tank) seeks to copy it with, in their own words, “short, high-quality videos, presenting leftist ideas, and refuting right-wing lies...” as well as some big names to present said ideas, including renowned socialist professors Richard D. Wolff and Cornel West, communist philosopher Slavoj Žižek, democratic-socialist politician Bernie Sanders, and many more. In fact, H. Jon Benjamin, the voice of Archer from Archer and Bob from Bob’s Burgers voiced the introduction video of the Institute. On the same day as its introduction, The Gravel Institute released a video titled “Is Big Government Really the Problem?” presented by socialist lawyer and former Sanders campaign press secretary Briahna Gray. Like advertised, it may as well be a PragerU video from a warped mirror universe, with similarly slick animations and figures, and left-wing talking points instead of right, only more radical. Another similarity between them is the oversimplifications, misrepresentations, and occasional falsehoods in the video. Often using correct-sounding slogans such as “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer,” and citing controversial studies as uncontested fact in order to “prove it” (though at least they clearly cite their studies for some of their points, unlike PragerU). One of their main selling-points in the video is that the American system only benefits elites, and the way to fight elites is by… expanding government power? Like PragerU, the slick animations, the confident tone of voice, the arguments from authority, and further finely-polished rhetorical flourishes give the impression of an unas-
14
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
sailable argument, but scratching a little below the surface tends to expose their gaping flaws. That is not to say that there aren’t strong arguments for everything asserted in The Gravel Institute’s video, but the intricacies and nuances can not be explored in a mere five minutes, and so we are left with conservatives and leftists valuing style over substance in their arguments, competing over who can be the greater sophists. Sophistry is one thing, and if that was the only thing occurring, I probably wouldn’t be writing this article. There are two things, however, that concern me: the first is the radical ideologies the Gravel Institute regularly espouses; the second is the utter contempt for civility that the Gravel Institute holds. In regards to the radicalism, The Gravel Institute has explicitly stated that it will present leftist ideas in it’s videos, with many of the contributors being left-wing radicals themselves. This looks to me like an escalation against PragerU’s largely anodyne and moderate conservatism. They are likewise “radical” in the way they express their ideas, holding concepts like “civility” and “courtesy” in contempt, like their somewhat viral tweet, “shut the fuck up,” when responding to a PragerU advertising tweet. Not only did they squander the opportunity to write, “F.U., P.U.,” but they also justified such an attack by citing a controversial statement from Dennis Prager, with their twitter-audience advocating for attacks against the “nazis” that are PragerU. This idea of rejecting “civility politics” has been growing, especially on the left, where their opponents are dismissed as acting in bad faith (take the Gravel Institute saying that PragerU is funded by oil-billionaires and thus illegitimate, for instance), or that the ideas espoused by their opponents are so reprehensible that there can be no polite conversation, only ridicule and potentially violence. I see a perilous path with this line of thought. It indicates to me that in the minds of many people, the “debate” is over, and that all that is left is for people to pick a side, theirs or the wrong/evil side. Civility is only a means of forestalling progress, and keeping the elites in power. As the Gravel Institute grows in popularity, they will continue to foster this culture of hostility and lack of good faith, justifying their increasingly uncivil attacks with five minute shorts and witty-sounding tweets. Exchange of actual ideas would begin to decrease, with polarized caricatures of opponents being represented as common ideas. The age of the audience which these videos target is also decreasing. PragerU and The Gravel Institute create their videos to convince college students and teenagers. These are impressionable minds that, if inculcated in the ideas that promote hostility and division by these videos, could cause great damage to the ideas of political tolerance and civil discussion in America. I am not so alarmist that I think this will necessarily destroy the Republic, but it could become a severe problem if left unchecked. If I may torture an old cliché: the problem with “fighting fire with fire” is that everyone eventually gets burned.
Vol. XXXIII, Issue IV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
BINGHAMTON REVIEW STAFF CRINGE RANKINGS
Binghamton Review Staff Cringe Rankings M
aking a ranking of Binghamton Review staff members? Yo, that’s kinda cringe. Making a ranking of Binghamton Review staff members based on how cringe they are? Yo, that’s the epitome of cringe. We created a Google form of our eleven most active staff members, with the option to rank each from one to eleven based on how cringey each staff member is. (To be clear, staff members were ranked in order from 1 to 11, not rated on a scale from 1 to 11.) We then sent the form to the same eleven staff members to definitely determine: who is the cringiest Binghamton Review writer? We recieved nine responses, but three people filled it out wrong. We took the data from the six people that filled the form out correctly and calculated the average score of each staff member. Here are the final rankings, starting with the least cringe and number eleven, and ending with the most cringe at number one.
bers? Spencer Haynes finishes in sixth, while Editor-in-Chief Tommy Gagliano ties with Will Anderson for seventh and eight place. The simps rated the only female on the list (though not the only female in the Review) Copy Desk Chief Madeline Perez low enough for her to grab ninth of eleven. Dillon O’Toole comes in at number ten, and, to his disappointment, Copy Desk Chief (we have two) Harold Rook finishes safely in last place, as our least-cringey staff member. Calculating the average gives us a nice ranking to go by, but each individual ranking varied pretty drastically. Here are each staff member’s position on different rankings, presented graphically:
11. Harold Rook (average score: 9) 10. Dillon O’Toole (average score: 7.67) 9. Madeline Perez (average score: 7.33) 7/8. Tommy Gagliano & Will Anderson (average score: 6.83) 6. Spencer Haynes (average score: 6.17) 5. Patrick McAuliffe (average score: 5.67) 4. Sebastian Roman (average score: 5) 3. Matt Gagliano (average score: 4.67) 2. Joe Badalamenti (average score: 4.5) 1. Jon Lizak (average score: 2.33) Jon Lizak (of College Republicans and TPUSA fame) tops the list by a pretty considerable margin—his 2.17-point lead over Joe is the largest gap between any two staff members. Business Manager Joe Badalamenti comes in second, with thirdplace Managing Editor Matt Gagliano just barely trailing him by 0.17 points. Social Media Shitposter Sebastian Roman comes in fourth, and Editor Emeritus Patrick McAuliffe rounds out the top five. Should we be concerned that four of the top five cringiest Review staff members are current or former e-board mem-
editor@binghamtonreview.com
Madeline wanted me to title the table “Cringe Data.” I refused. The table is a little fucky, but if you try hard enough you concentrate hard enough you might be able to decipher some information from it. Brian somehow managed to be ranked first in one person’s rankings, but last in another’s. Tommy, Joe, and Spencer had some pretty drastic differences in individual results as well. All six respondents ranked Jon in the top four, while five of six respondents ranked Jake eigth or lower. Joe received more number one rankings than anyone else, and Jake received the most number eleven rankings. The differences may be related to the different ideologies when it comes to ranking cringe. One respondent commented that less active members were automatically ranked as more cringe, while another based their decision primarily on individual instances. Other comments included “Sebastion’s [sic] cringe rating went up due to the one [R]eview meeting where he decided to act like a mime the entire time,” “Joe kinda cringe, not gonna lie,” and “No one actively writing for Bing Review is very cringe... except Lizak.”
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
15