110320

ZIMMER AT WAPO: FEDS SHOULD STAY OUT OF CAMPUS FREE SPEECH

NOVEMBER 4, 2020 SIXTH WEEK VOL. 133, ISSUE 7

PAGE 3

Elections 2020: Hyde Park Heads to the Polls UChiVotes Pushes Early Voting PAGE 5

Voters Cite Diverse Motivations in Decision on Presidential Race PAGE 2

Student Groups Focus Beyond the Election PAGE 2

ATMAN MEHTA

2020 Campaign Interns Look to Election Day

Halloween Night: Heavy Police Presence on E. 53rd

PAGE 5

Grey City: Political Science Profs Weigh the Stakes Getting the Vote Out in a Pandemic

LAURA GERSONY

PAGE 6 & 9

PAGE 4

VIEWPOINTS: Break With the Impulse to Unhappy Careerism PAGE 11

VIEWPOINTS: Don’t Succumb to COVID Apathy PAGE 12

ARTS: Professors Offer Views on Leopoldstadt

NEWS: City Council Hearing on CPD Oversign Proposals

PAGE 13

Like our Facebook page at facebook.com/chicagomaroon and follow @chicagomaroon on Instagram and Twitter to get the latest updates on campus news.

PAGE 6 chicagomaroon.com

THE CHICAGO MAROON — NOVEMBER 4, 2020

2

Awaiting Election Results, Student Groups Look to Future

By CAROLINE KUBZANSKY & LAURA GERSONY Managing Editor and Grey City Editor As election results trickle in, student advocacy groups and organizations affiliated with political parties are charting a path forward.

Some student groups, including the Phoenix Survivors’ Alliance (PSA), Students for Disability Justice, and Active Minds, are planning to hold grieving spaces over the next few days for students to process the election.

Many of these grieving spaces were planned in anticipation of a Trump victory.

But PSA representative Kelly Lo said that the rape allegations levied against both candidates—particularly the general dismissal of Tara Reade’s accusations against Joe Biden—meant that the space to grieve will be needed regardless of outcome.

“Survivors of sexual assault are currently being asked to vote for a rapist to prevent another rapist from coming to power.

They’re being asked to vote for their own protection, and their own rights, and they’re being asked to do that in a very traumatizing way, where they have to vote for someone who they know has harmed people,” she said. “There is really no way for survivors to win.”

Many survivors of sexual assault were re-traumatized and triggered by being pressured to vote for someone they don’t believe in, Lo said, making it all the more important to carve out a supportive space for processing the past few months.

“This is a time where many of us are grieving, alone; and it’s a time where many of us want to grieve together, to hopefully support each other, and move forward in a way that makes us feel less alone.”

PSA’s virtual “grieving space,” set to go live later this week, will be a private Facebook group where users can anonymously submit their thoughts and reactions to the election.

Organizers with several left-leaning student groups, including Graduate Students United, UChicago Student Action, and Tenants United Hyde Park (TU) told The Maroon that they have no specific plans for activism in the days following the election.

Representatives from UChicago Mutual Aid said that in the event of a Republican victory, the group will make resources available to students as specific needs arise. Similarly, John Hieronymus of TU said that the group is taking a “wait and see” approach, simply making sure that members are safe as they engage in any activism.

A representative from the College Republicans (CR), who preferred to remain

anonymous in anticipation of “online backlash,” said that CR does not plan to significantly adjust their programming in light of the election results. Asked what the club would do if Trump claims a premature victory on election night, he said that the club will proceed as usual, and will simply debate the President’s claim at their weekly Thursday meeting.

“We’re a Republican group on a college campus. We don’t wield any form of political power,” he said. “What happens happens; it doesn’t change what we do.”

But this election has spotlighted a deep division within CR. “The club opinion on whether or not Donald Trump is the right person to be elected tomorrow is very, very split,” he explained. “It’s probably close to 50/50.”

This is consistent with the club’s usual state of internal disagreement, which often prevents them from making public endorsements or statements on issues.

“We don’t really have a unified opinion on things,” he said. “[The UC Dems] are a much more ideologically centralized club than we are.... They are considered to be centered around like the democratic socialism aspect of the Democratic Party. And we are not at all centered around being Trumpist.”

There is no such reluctance to act within the UC Dems, who have been do-

ing twice-weekly phone banks and weekly guest speaker events. Lauren Cole, executive director of UC Dems, said that in the event that Biden wins, the club intends to keep their foot on the gas pedal.

“Best-case scenario, we still recognize that more work needs to be done within the Democratic Party,” she said.

The club intends to shift its focus to local politics after the election, a sphere in which they think they can make the most change. This plan to change gears means that a Trump victory also won’t significantly change their programming going forward.

“It’s gonna be very hard for us as an organization to affect any of Trump’s policies, but it will be easier for us to talk to our state representatives, or state legislatures, and get things done that way,” Cole said.

In the short term, regardless of outcome, they intend to allow a moment for recovery from a hectic election cycle before resuming activities again.

“We’ve had a lot of mobilization efforts.

That means, post-election, we are trying to just give everyone a little bit of space,” she said. “If it does go the way we want it to, good; we can take a breath. And if it doesn’t go the way we want it to, then we can give everyone a little bit of time and space to feel what they need to.”

Steady Stream of Diverse Voters at Precincts on Election Day

By CAROLINE KUBZANSKY & FINN HARTNETT Managing Editor and News Reporter Hyde Park and Woodlawn residents of every political stripe went to polling places to vote on Election Day despite the COVID-19 pandemic.

In masks and socially distanced lines, voters told The Maroon about what motivated them to cast their ballots this year, listing everything from police reform to the pandemic to religious liberty. While many saw the election as an opportunity to express their displeasure with the Donald Trump administration, a handful cast their ballots in support of the president.

Almost as many brought gloves to wear in the polling station, and one voter came

equipped with Lysol spray, wipes, and a pair of goggles.

Outside of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Woodlawn, a polling location, opinions were divided.

Asked what was most important to him in casting his ballot, pastor Courtney Lewis, who leads the church’s congregation on Sundays, replied, “Life. I am fiercely prolife. Liberty. The Second Amendment.”

He fears that much of what he values will be at risk if the Democrats take back the White House.

Monique Arnold, a UChicago desk clerk lead, arrived at the same polling place before her 7 a.m. work shift. She also took a dim view of the Democratic candidates, and noted that Joe Biden has been in the public eye for 47 years but has not demon-

strated commitment to his ambitious platform which includes building on the Affordable Care Act, tackling racial inequity, and taking action on climate change.

“He’s been in office for 47 years, and what has he really done?” Arnold asked. “If he wants to do all these things he should have done them with Barack [Obama], as a VP and before then. I’d rather deal with someone who shows who they are, then someone who [doesn’t] show who they are.”

Amy Aschliman, a 34-year-old pastor at Chicago Theological Seminary, turned out to vote for Joe Biden at Ray Elementary. Aschliman finds Trump revolting: She sees a vote for Biden as a vote against Trump.

“Trump is an evil person,” she told The Maroon. “And lots of things are at stake.

And even though I’m not that excited about Biden, nothing’s better.”

Aschliman chose to cast her ballot in person due to logistical problems and time constraints requesting an absentee ballot.

“Every time I went to register online, I just didn’t have my ID with me, or [I was] procrastinating,” she said.

Tasha Brown-Smith and Emaya Ginn, a mother and daughter, also came to vote in person because of scheduling concerns, and shared Aschliman’s lukewarm attitude toward Biden.

“At this point in the game, you really don’t know who to trust,” Emaya said.

However, she said that Biden’s time in office made him a better candidate than Trump, who she said had degraded the ofCONTINUED ON PG. 3

THE CHICAGO MAROON — NOVEMBER 4, 2020

3

“I definitely do not want Trump as a president.”

CONTINUED FROM PG. 2

fice of the presidency.

“It’d be better having somebody experienced as opposed to somebody who is just trying to have a power struggle, publicity stunt type of situation,” she said.

But the mother-daughter pair was also excited to vote for an administration that they thought would provide “momentum” to the causes of racial equity, policing, and ending the pandemic.

Many voters who spoke to The Maroon said they voted because of their conviction that voting was just the right thing to do.

For UChicago third-year Daniel Kramer, it was his first time voting in a presidential election.

“It’s tough to look at one vote like it matters,” Kramer said. “But...it does, and it’s nice to feel like it does.”

Other voters, especially younger ones like second-year Cade Bruce, said friends

and family members convinced them to vote.

“It was really my mom calling me and being excited about voting and stuff,” Bruce said.

Analis Figueroa, 19, said her friends had pushed her to go to the polls and to vote for Democratic candidates. Figueroa herself, though, felt unenthusiastic about the process and uninformed, by her own assessment, about the choices she was making.

“I don’t know much about politics and all that,” she said. “I just came because [my friends] told me to. I don’t know what any of this shit is. I want to be done.”

“I’m glad that I voted, though,” she added. “I mean, I know it’s important. I definitely do not want Trump as a president.”

Kramer said that although he was glad that he had voted, he remained apprehensive about potential complications in determining the election’s outcome. Due to expected delays for counting mail-in bal-

Shermin and Cole handed out snacks to voters at Ray Elementary. atman mehta lots and other issues associated with the pandemic, pundits and political operatives have speculated that the result of the election may not be clear for weeks following Election Day.

“I mean, it feels good to have voted, but I’m still nervous,” he said. “I don’t know if we’re gonna know the outcome tonight or tomorrow. But it’s definitely not over, and I’m still nervous to see what happens.”

President Zimmer Speaks in Washington Post Webinar on the Future of Free Expression in America

By NATALIE MANLEY News Reporter University of Chicago President Robert Zimmer spoke to the Washington Post last Wednesday in an hour-long livestream event entitled “Free to State: The New Free Speech.” Zimmer emphasized that now more than ever, universities across the country should evaluate their commitment to free expression on their campuses.

The webinar, hosted by The Washington Post’s “Opinions at Large” Editor Michael Duffy and University of Chicago alum Sam Gill of the Knight Foundation, featured Zimmer and Karen Kornbluh, Senior Fellow and Director of German Marshall Fund’s Digital Innovation and Democracy Initiative.

Zimmer, who was introduced by Duffy as “the standard bearer on the subject of free expression on college campuses,” spoke about the genesis of the Chicago principles on Free Expression, their effectiveness, and the current climate surrounding free speech across college campuses and in America as a whole.

“Free expression, open discourse, and intellectual challenge [are] absolutely critical to the environment of a great university,” Zimmer said. “[The Chicago principles] were designed to actually capture a long-standing set of beliefs, and a long-standing set of reactions of the University of Chicago since its inception in the 1890s.”

The Chicago principles, which are outlined in the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression, state that the University “is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, and guarantees all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.” The report also emphasizes that “it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”

Zimmer stressed that the University believed in the Chicago Principles for many years before its official inception. However, he acknowledged that they were put in place

at a time when the country was seeing an increase in controversial speakers being disinvited from college campuses after receiving negative backlash from various student and faculty groups. “We knew that that was not us,” Zimmer said, “and we needed to say it.”

Yet despite his support for free expression on campus and concern about speakers being disinvited by universities, Zimmer expressed his disapproval of an executive order Trump signed in March that stated that colleges would lose federal funding if they did not protect free speech on campus.

The order was signed in the presence of over 100 student activists who claimed that their conservative views were being suppressed at universities.

“The idea that the federal government was now going to take a part in deciding what it is that’s appropriate to be said on campus, I viewed as deeply problematic,” Zimmer said.

Zimmer stressed that the University’s policy on free expression is especially important given the current political climate.

“We are certainly in a challenging time in terms of discourse in this country in gener-

al,” Zimmer noted. “The ambient environment in the country certainly has an impact on people.”

Zimmer also expressed his fear that free expression may be in danger nationwide. “We’re in a time of a lot of stress on the system,” Zimmer said. “We’ve got social unrest, we’ve got a pandemic, and we’ve got a national election that is generating emotional reaction and a lot of strong feelings and a lot of strong views.”

“So, you’ve got all these stresses on the system, and one of the great dangers with respect to free expression is people feeling very morally sure of themselves and dismissive of other people’s views,” Zimmer said. “That’s a very dangerous slope.”

When asked if the principles were effective over the past six years, Zimmer responded, “From the point of view of laying out fundamental principles, reinforcing fundamental principles, and guiding actions on the University of Chicago campus, [they have] been very good.”

He noted that approximately 70 univerCONTINUED ON PG. 4

THE CHICAGO MAROON — NOVEMBER 4, 2020

4

Zimmer: “We are a place of constant challenge, constant argument” CONTINUED FROM PG. 3

sities have adopted or endorsed the Chicago principles since they were established in 2014. Zimmer made it clear that when schools don’t explicitly outline their commitment to free expression, like UChicago has, those schools struggle.

“When you hand out a diploma, is there a clear sense to what that means?” Zimmer asked of these universities. “Does it mean that students have spent some time in class and taken some exams, or does it have a deeper meaning around the nature of their education and what are the intellectual skills

and habits of mind that they’ve been able to develop through their education? If you don’t have those kinds of fundamental principles, then you’re just stuck in an argument.”

Zimmer said he hopes that the Chicago principles have bettered students’ educational experience by allowing them to

exercise free expression and “reinforced this sense on campus that we are a place of constant challenge, constant argument, constant exploration of ideas, and the belief that clarity derives from the clash of ideas, not from deference to someone else’s ideas.”

Halloween Night Brings Police, Protesters, and Organizers to Hyde Park

By AVI WALDMAN, CAROLINE KUBZANSKY, LAURA GERSONY, & MATT LEE Maroon Staff East 53rd Street saw a heavy police presence this year on Halloween as officers used bicycles and squad cars to herd groups of teenagers toward Lake Michigan, resulting in at least one arrest. Earlier in the night, several activist groups staged demonstrations in support of defunding the University of Chicago Police Department (UCPD) and reducing policing of neighborhoods by the Chicago Police Department.

Previous Halloweens in Hyde Park have seen significant police activity and property damage in the neighborhood, prompting counterprogramming efforts by local organizations.

At around 8 p.m., a large group of teens gathered on 53rd Street and South Blackstone Avenue, near the United Church of Hyde Park. The scene was jovial, with participants socializing and no incidents of property damage, although police gathered nearby.

By 9:30 p.m., however, police on bicycles began to gradually push the group eastwards on 53rd Street. Corralled by police, a fight broke out between teens within the group, prompting swift police response as officers surrounded an injured individual and blocked access to the street. An ambulance arrived to transport the injured person.

Police then adopted a much more aggressive stance towards the group, forming a bicycle line and advancing the group of teens eastwards towards South Lake Park Avenue. From there, officers moved the group north on South Lake Park towards the BP gas station, then back south onto 53rd Street.

At 10:30 p.m., as the group moved south, continually pushed back by police, a second fight broke out. Police detained a teenage male for allegedly striking another teen.

Police in a bicycle line continued to push the group further west on 53rd Street until 11 p.m. By then, much of the group had dispersed. No property damage occurred during the night’s events.

Earlier in the night, two activist groups, Good Kids Mad City and #CareNotCops, a joint campaign of UChicago groups Students Working Against Prisons and UC United, held events in Hyde Park in opposition to police. #CareNotCops held a costumed rally on the UChicago quad, burning a banner with the UChicago crest on it and throwing toilet paper on bushes outside Levi Hall.

Protesters also spray painted “Is a racist POS” underneath the building’s sign.

Deans-on-Call were present at the rally, and declined to give their names to The Maroon. The Deans said that starting fires and spray-painting the quad constituted destruction of property and violated University rules; however, they said they did not know the identities of students at the demonstration and could not press disciplinary action. Organizers with #CareNotCops wore masks and asked not to have names attached to the statements they made to The Maroon.

“On Halloween, the University of Chicago Police Department over-polices the South Side and Black and Brown community members, and the recent emails, they claim that they support and are invested in public safety and care about student safety and community member safety,” one organizer told The Maroon. “We all know that’s a lie.”

Several undergraduates involved with The Chicago Thinker, a new conservative

Police surround a battery victim on East 53rd Street. matthew lee publication on campus, came upon the aftermath of #CareNotCops’s demonstration on their way back from Hutchinson Commons, and shared their views on the action with The Maroon.

First-year Eden Negussie took a dim view of the protestors’ actions.

“The sheer privilege that it takes for them to stand here and destroy property, private property, and vandalize the university that I’m paying to go to all just to protest a police force that is here to keep them safe and protect them from the dangerous surrounding area,” Negussie said.

First-year Kevin Flores said he thinks UCPD helps keep UChicago students safe.

“Every interaction I’ve had with an officer has been completely professional, very civil,” Flores said. “As a person of color, I’m a Latino, I do not feel threatened.

I know that some other people do. And I mean, I respect that, but I just personally

do not.”

Four blocks north, at 53rd and University, organizers with Good Kids Mad City staked out the street corner with snacks, water bottles, and legal observers. Organizer Jalen Kobayashi said the group was there to prevent violence and escalation with police.

“In Chicago, Halloween is one of the deadliest days like every year, because of our hyper-policed city,” he said. “Some neighborhoods are so overly focused on and over policed, that [other] neighborhoods are completely neglected.”

Good Kids Mad City organizers, he said, were trying to show how community organizing could help locals de-escalate conflicts without involving police.

“What we’re trying to do today is basically show people that you can have an alternative to policing on the most deadly night,” Kobayashi said.

THE CHICAGO MAROON — NOVEMBER 4, 2020

5

Student Campaign Interns Reflect on the 2020 Election

By HANNAH NI News Reporter Back in the summer of 2019, several UChicago students traveled to Iowa with the Institute of Politics’s Iowa Project to work on Democratic campaigns for the 2020 primaries. Now, with Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee, The Maroon checked in with student campaign interns on their feelings about Tuesday’s election and how the political arena has changed since they were in Iowa.

Third-year Zander Arnao was one of these interns. He chose to work on the campaign of former Democratic presidential primary candidate Pete Buttigieg because he agreed with Buttigieg’s vision for the country, his prioritization of institutional reform, and generational change. And notably, Arnao liked Buttigieg’s youth.

At the time, he didn’t consider Joe Biden. “I felt like Biden was a relic of an

older time, like an older view of institutions and bipartisanship that didn’t really jive with where I was at,” Arnao said. He felt as though Biden was too moderate and that Buttigieg was a better messenger for a less moderate vision that contained a lot of dynamic and truly progressive elements.

Arnao recalls that while working at events in Iowa, he would often see organizers for Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. However, he seldom saw any for Biden, whose light presence made him seem like a “non-factor.” He thought Biden wasn’t going to be prominent in the race. But when Buttigieg dropped out of the race, Arnao ended up voting for Biden instead of Sanders in his state’s primary. He didn’t think a “democratic socialist could win over independent voters in certain swing states very successfully.”

Arnao believes that Joe Biden is a good choice for the Democratic Party be-

cause he’s “palatable to many people and people trust him to be an effective leader of the state.” Arnao notes this is a characteristic that is essential in an election occurring in a pandemic. He says that if Sanders or any other candidate that is perceived as radical were the nominee, it wouldn’t be good for Democrats, as it would be difficult to convince people of radicalism during a crisis.

Third-year Michael Ryter, who worked on the Warren campaign during the Democratic primaries, also agrees with the party’s decision to congregate around Biden, though Biden wasn’t his first choice. Though Ryter said he initially wanted a candidate with more progressive values, he’s now excited about the prospect of a Biden-Harris administration. “It’s really important that Democrats be unified against the Trump-Pence administration and all the dangers it poses to our country,” Ryter said.

Third-year Cassandra Crevecoeur supported Biden since the primaries and worked on his campaign in Iowa.

“I thought he was the best middleman candidate who is tolerable for enough Democrats, but also a good foil on Donald Trump,” she said.

The first state Biden won was South Carolina, in February. Crevecoeur recalls feeling “goosebumps.” She was worried about his performance in later states, but as he kept winning, “I was like, this is really, really cool. This is my candidate.”

Crevecoeur thinks Biden has a good chance at beating Donald Trump in the general election, though she acknowledges that his victory is far from guaranteed. “There are so many other factors now, especially with COVID, that I don’t want to let myself only think that he’s going to win. A lot can change in a presidential election,” she said.

On National Vote Early Day, UChiVotes Encourages Voter Engagement

By LUKIAN KING News Reporter UChiVotes, the non-partisan voter engagement initiative housed in the Institute of Politics (IOP), set up information tables across campus on Saturday to encourage early voting. They also directed prospective voters to Ray Elementary School, an early-voting site in Hyde Park operating seven days a week, from 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekends.

“Our goal is to make UChicago the number one voting campus in America,” said Julianna Rossi, a third-year in the College and the UChiVotes Chair. “The number of young people who vote is really abysmal, and we knew that UChicago students could do better than that.”

She went on to say that even people who are not interested in politics still have many reasons to vote. “Everyone has a why. There is something in the process of voting that everyone cares about, whether it’s criminal justice or healthcare, or anything. Even your local sewage system is controlled by the aldermen in Chicago. So there’s something that everyone cares about in voting, no matter if you say you don’t even care about politics; there’s

something in there that you care about.”

The organization, which has reached out to over 600 faculty members and 150 RSOs since they started in 2018, sought to further their mobilization efforts by tabling outside of every residence hall on campus this Saturday. Throughout the day, UChiVotes members answered student questions about voting and provided resources for mail-in ballots.

The day’s events were planned in concurrence with a national Vote Early Day in an attempt to increase the momentum for mail-in voting in the days before the election. Early and mail-in voting options are especially important in this election because COVID–19 has raised safety concerns about in-person voting.

“This year, voting is complicated because of COVID–19,” said fourth-year Aliza Oppenheim, UChiVotes Vice Chair. “So many different states have different deadlines, different rules for voting by mail. Some states are all vote by mail, some states you have to request it specially, so that’s why voting early for me is especially important, [in addition to] making sure that students are educated in that process, because I know that I felt very alone and confused when I couldn’t fig-

The voting precinct at Cornerstone Baptist Church. caroline kubzansky ure [it out]. Voting is the minimum you can do to have a say in what’s going on, to have a say in your community from the national to the local level.”

UChiVotes will continue to advocate for voting until election day. “We keep posting on our social media, we have text banks every

week a couple times a week where we reach out to people and make sure they all have a plan to vote,” said Sophia Michel, a member of the Voting Ambassador team, “and what all of us can do is just make sure that your friends are voting and your family [are] voting.”

THE CHICAGO MAROON — NOVEMBER 4, 2020

6

City Council Held Hearing on Civilian Oversight of CPD

By KATE HU News Reporter On October 20, the Chicago City Council Committee on Public Safety held a public hearing to discuss two proposals that would each create a civilian oversight board to supervise the Chicago Police Department (CPD). The meeting was a culmination of public pushes to enact such a board since 2016, when two competing reform plans— the Civilian Police Accountability Council (CPAC) and the Grassroots Alliance for Police Accountability (GAPA)—were first introduced.

CPAC Although CPAC was first introduced in July 2016, it did not receive a public hearing until 2018. In order to proceed with the ordinance, the Public Safety Committee needs to have a hearing on the proposal and the City Council needs to vote on whether to approve or reject it. The City Council rejected the CPAC proposal after the 2018 hearing, with Mayor Lori Lightfoot opposing the ordinance. She said that there are a “number of things that are highly concerning” about the ordinance without specifying what her concerns were. In this version, CPAC would have completely replaced the Civilian Office of Police Accountability (COPA) and the Police Board and would have had its own investigators for police misconduct.

While the old version of CPAC planned to eliminate the Police Board and COPA, a new version presented at the most recent hearing would give the oversight board the power to hire and fire COPA administrators

and to appoint members of the Police Board.

However, COPA would also be given its own investigative force to review allegations of police misconduct, and CPAC’s own investigative corps would be eliminated.

During the hearing last week, Tamer Abouzeid, an investigator for COPA, spoke as a CPAC representative. He introduced the newest version of CPAC. Under the plan’s latest iteration, CPAC members would be elected every four years, and one member would be elected from each set of two contiguous police districts by residents of the districts, totaling 11 members in the council. Candidates would need to fulfill certain qualifications in order to run, including at least two years of experience with organizations that protect the rights of people who have faced police brutality.

Alderman Michele Smith of the 43rd Ward expressed concerns over CPAC qualifications. She pointed out that the qualifications are too specific and risk excluding a particular group of qualified candidates.

She said that although this kind of candidate has had negative experiences with the police and would have meaningful perspectives to contribute, lack of work experience with such organizations would prohibit them from running.

Abouzeid called on the aldermen to engage with the proposals. “What the movement means to you, Aldermen, is living up to your duty and engaging with the proposals in good faith, reading the ordinance, thinking about what it does, offering amendments if you think they make it better, and passing fundamental change that puts power not in the hands of this body, or a mayor, or who-

ever they may be, but in the hands of the people,” he said.

GAPA The GAPA plan was also introduced in 2016. Unlike CPAC, GAPA would keep many of the current structures within the police department. Following Lightfoot’s opposition to CPAC, the Mayor’s Office announced their partnership with GAPA in a statement. Lightfoot had been a supporter of GAPA since she chaired the Police Accountability Task Force, a police reform group, in December 2015. However, she recently had a disagreement with GAPA over who should be the final decision-maker for Police Department policy. Although activists wanted to transfer that power to the civilian oversight board, Lightfoot insisted on keeping it with the city officials. As a result, the Mayor’s Office withdrew its support for GAPA in March.

GAPA representatives Desmon Yancy and Barry Friedman outlined the proposals at the hearing. The citywide commission will appoint the police superintendent and the police board from a list of candidates recommended by the mayor and an oversight commission. Yancy said that this process maximizes community control over selecting public safety leaders while remaining within the boundaries of Illinois constitutional and state law.

The GAPA ordinance would establish a three-person District Council in each police district, and each District Council would then select one member to be on the nominating committee for the citywide Community Commission. The nominating commit-

tee would nominate two candidates for each commission seat, and from these nominees the mayor and City Council would select the final seven commissioners. The proposal does not detail specific qualifications for candidacy.

Legislative Opinions Several aldermen expressed support for various aspects of both plans.

In her comments, Fifth Ward Alderman Leslie Hairston expressed her support for civilian oversight and acknowledged that creating elected boards would require unprecedented changes. “It is going to require us to take some steps that we have never taken in the city,” she said.

Fortieth Ward Alderman Andre Vasquez, who led the effort to demand a public hearing two years after the last City Council decision on CPAC, also commented on several details of CPAC and GAPA. According to him, CPAC provision allows the board to introduce and adopt its own policy, as well as policy introduced by other bodies. “Let’s imagine a scenario where the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) has a ton of money compared to everybody else. They are able to get a full council, and they would have the ability to introduce and pass their own laws in that scenario,” Vasquez said. “When money influences the election period, and there is no check and balance on that, we would be in a worse position in that case.”

Abouzeid responded that such issues could occur in any election or legislative body, but Vasquez insisted that there should be checks and balances introduced in the proposal to address this problem.

UChicago Professors Weigh in on the 2020 Presidential Election

By EMMA KONRAD & NEYU SHIMO Grey City Reporters

Grey City sat down with UChicago political science professors to discuss the issues and the stakes of the upcom-

ing United States presidential election.

Here’s what they had to say: Professor Tom Ginsburg on the U.S. Constitutional Democracy The increasingly fraught and polarized political scene has sparked doubts

among academics about the stability of our democracy. Political science and law professor Tom Ginsburg ventures an answer to this concern in his new book, How to Save a Constitutional Democracy.

Ginsburg explained that America’s electoral system plays no small part in

creating the fragility of United States politics. The issues at play were foreseen by the founding fathers, he said, but they didn’t account for party loyalties to rise above a politician’s ambition in his own branch of government. In other words, CONTINUED ON PG. 7

THE CHICAGO MAROON — NOVEMBER 4, 2020

7

“There is no rich democracy that runs elections as badly as the United States.”

CONTINUED FROM PG. 6

he explained, American democracy is not immune to bad actors.

“If you have a leader who is really trying to destroy democracy actively and had the cooperation of the judges, that person would be able to succeed, I think. The constitution is not a foolproof system,” Ginsburg said.

The dangers of such a leader are that they undermine the efficacy of the institutions the Constitution has put forth and the people’s faith in the institutions themselves.

“Charismatic populists are people who claim to represent the people exclusively. So, the leader alone knows what the people want. Those people have an inherent distrust and thus try to undermine any intermediary institutions between the people and the leader, which includes the bureaucracy, media, and courts,” Ginsburg said. “A constitutional democracy cannot truly exist without these institutions functioning well. We need to follow the rule of law and not whatever the whims are of who happens to be the leader.”

Despite these concerns, Ginsburg is decidedly not worried that President Donald Trump will refuse to step down if former Vice President Joe Biden wins the election. The cause for his optimism?

Optics. In his view, bad television would be the worst-case scenario for a former star of a reality show.

“There has been a lot of speculation about this: What if the Electoral College votes in December for Biden, but Trump refuses to step down? I’m not worried about that at all because, constitutionally, a new president will be sworn in on January 20. If need be, President Trump would have to be removed by the Secret Service, which would be very bad television. Since he is going to rely on television for his future career if he loses this election, I don’t see that happening,” Ginsburg said.

However, Ginsburg does worry about a possible impending constitutional legitimacy crisis. This could occur in the event that a state legislature, which is the body formally endowed with the ability to send electors to the Electoral College, defied voters’ choice.

“If you had them overturn the will

of the people in that state, which would be legal and constitutional under our system, it would create a major constitutional crisis,” Ginsburg said.

The very foundation of our constitution, or really that of any democracy, is that the representatives act in the interest of their constituents. A deliberate dismissal of the will of the people might shake people’s confidence in the legitimacy of a constitution that allows that.

Fortunately, in July, the Supreme Court ruled that faithless electors can no longer go rogue as part of the Electoral College.

One integral aspect of a functioning democracy is its fair and unbiased elections—a vital institution that is rapidly degrading in America and falling far behind its peers, Ginsburg said.

“There is no rich democracy that runs elections as badly as the United States,” Ginsburg said. “Indeed, there are many poor countries that run elections much better.”

This is in part because the U.S. has a highly decentralized system of election administration.

“In our country, we leave the rules of our voting to the states, and some of them not only don’t try to facilitate their citizens voting, but they try to hinder it,” Ginsburg said. “The people running these elections are partisan officials; they’re Secretaries of State, which in most states are elected officials of one party or the other.”

Ginsburg proposes the creation of a party-neutral federal bureaucracy to oversee U.S. elections.

Ultimately, in Ginsburg’s view, threats to our constitutional democracy did not start—nor will they end— with Trump.

“Trump is a symptom of and an accelerant of the erosion of our democracy, which preceded his election and will probably continue regardless of what happens next month,” says Ginsburg. “We have to look not just at the personality but at the institutions and the processes that got us to this point.”

Professor Linda Zerilli on Women in Politics After a Democratic primary season that put candidates’—particularly fe-

male candidates’—“electability” under the microscope, professor Linda Zerilli of the Department of Political Science, who studies the role of women and gender in politics, said that in choosing Kamala Harris as his vice presidential nominee, “Joe Biden made the politically smart choice.”

“He, as an individual, understands the importance of bringing people who have different experiences and perspectives into his administration,” Zerilli said.

“The way in which he builds his cabinet will matter.”

But Zerilli is not only concerned with representation: she is also keeping an eye out for what roles women would play in his cabinet. She noted that, historically, women have often been appointed to cabinet positions associated with female gender norms, such as education.

“It will be interesting to see if he brings women into roles that we don’t normally see women in, like security, foreign policy and so on. This is what Obama did with Hillary Clinton,” Zerilli said.

Some have argued that Biden’s commitment to choosing a woman as his running mate would merely be a performative gesture and a disservice to the nominee (and the public) due to the emphasis on gender over policy. This critique was also applied when Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Still, Zerilli does not believe that this critique applies to Harris.

“I think that Kamala Harris has a very clear sense of the extra burdens that women have in this society, particularly with the pandemic and the way in which the pandemic disproportionately affects women, especially women of color, but women generally,” Zerilli elaborated.

“She will bring that experience to her role as VP.” On the broader topic of women representatives in Washington, Zerilli said that women in Congress have taken up the role of “truth-teller.”

“There are now more women serving in Congress, thanks to the last election where women came in in record numbers.

I think to some people the very presence of women in Congress is already very agitating, but in some cases, they do have to be willing to take the risk of saying

things that may not make them ‘likable,’ like naming the elephant in the room,” Zerilli said.

Female Representatives have become truth-tellers in the sense of bringing to light perspectives and systemic problems long ignored, but that does not necessarily mean there is more truth in politics than usual. Zerilli’s most recent publication revolved around truth-telling in politics: a practice of which the past four years have seen a concerning decline.

“It concerns me when democratic citizens stop expecting that their representatives tell them the truth. That should be an expectation. Not that [representatives] aren’t going to fail—they will—but we should still demand that of them,” Zerilli said.

She extended this criticism to the President’s withholding information about the severity of the pandemic earlier this year.

“To say that ‘I didn’t want to scare people’ is not a satisfactory way of dealing with democratic citizens,” Zerilli said.

“We are adults and we need to know what is actually happening in our world so we can decide how we are going to collectively manage these problems.”

Professor Ruth Bloch Rubin on Partisanship Assistant professor of political science Ruth Bloch Rubin, who studies American politics and political parties, discussed the stakes of the upcoming election and the partisan aspects of the electoral process.

Asked about concerns that Trump would refuse to leave office if voted out, Bloch Rubin said that while she does not believe that the country is on the verge of dictatorship, there is still a lot at stake in this election.

“There are really salient policy rea sons why this election matters, whether we get an economic recovery bill, how big, whether the stimulus bill works, whether people are pulled into even deeper poverty or lifted out, whether our schools will be able to open and run—those are the issues at stake,” Bloch Rubin said. “The equalizing nature of the pandemic has made it easier for people to see each other as neighbors.”

CONTINUED ON PG. 8

THE CHICAGO MAROON — NOVEMBER 4, 2020

8

“I think Joe Biden is pretty likely to win the election....”

CONTINUED FROM PG. 7

Bloch Rubin is not concerned about Trump staying in power after Inauguration Day. In her view, the ambitions of other politicians will safeguard the United States against a dictatorship.

“I’m fairly confident at minimum in the ambitions of other Republicans to prevent the current president from staying in power longer than he was intended to. If I am a Republican who wants to run for president someday, I can’t if there is a dictator,” Bloch Rubin said.

While Bloch Rubin does not perceive an imminent threat of dictatorship, she does not believe that national elections provide completely fair representation. Bloch Rubin supports abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote.

“I think it is important for people elected to national office to reflect the popular will, and so if the majority of Americans want person A, then that person should be the president. It shouldn’t matter whether your state is more or less populous, that seems to increase the odds that people will find electoral outcomes illegitimate.”

Indeed, Trump’s winning of the Electoral College and loss of the popular vote in the 2016 election provoked many to say that he was “not my president.” One reason pundits speculate that the Clinton campaign failed to win the Electoral College is that it spent most of its time trying to persuade voters in swing states instead of focusing on turning out votes in blue wall states, a group of states previously thought to be strongly Democratic, like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

In politically polarized times, the population of moderate voters appears to be dwindling as the gap between the driving political ideologies of the Republican and Democratic Parties continues to widen. As far as the disappearance of this so-called “undecided” block of voters, Bloch Rubin argues that “some would say there were never ‘undecided voters.’ When you ask people what their party affiliation is, you do have some people who will identify as independents, and we tend to think of these people as undecided. There are many people who for whatever reason want to identify as independent but vote like partisans.”

Moreover, Bloch Rubin explains, “We do have a small number of people who flip-flop.

There’s the mythical Obama to an imminent threat of dictatorship, she does not believe

that national elections provide completely fair representation. Bloch Rubin supports abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote.

“I think it is important for people elected to national office to reflect the popular will, and so if the majority of Americans want person A, then that person should be the president. It shouldn’t matter whether your state is more or less populous, that seems to increase the odds that people will find electoral outcomes illegitimate.”

Indeed, Trump’s winning of the Electoral College and loss of the popular vote in the 2016 election provoked many to say that he was “not my president.” One reason pundits speculate that the Clinton campaign failed to win the Electoral College is that it spent most of its time trying to persuade voters in swing states instead of focusing on turning out votes in blue wall states, a group of states previously thought to be strongly Democratic, like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

In politically polarized times, the population of moderate voters appears to be dwindling as the gap between the driving political ideologies of the Republican and Democratic Parties continues to widen. As far as the disappearance of this so-called “undecided” block of voters, Bloch Rubin argues that “some would say there were never ‘undecided voters.’ When you ask people what their party affiliation is, you do have some people who will identify as independents, and we tend to think of these people as undecided. There are many people who for whatever reason want to identify as independent but vote like partisans.”

Moreover, Bloch Rubin explains, “We do have a small number of people who flip-flop.

There’s the mythical Obama to Trump voter or Trump to Biden voter that these candidates have to persuade. In a very close election, every vote counts, so it is hard to deny that those individuals aren’t important, but turnout of the base is also important. If you can turn out the people who often don’t participate, but ideologically agree with you, then you wouldn’t need to care about these undecideds.”

Professor Eric Oliver on Political Polarization With November 3 rapidly approaching, the division and distrust between Americans of different political parties are only growing.

For Eric Oliver, a professor of political science who studies contemporary American politics and political psychology, the polarization gripping the United States and the reason why you can’t find commonality with “your crazy uncle who you have to see on Thanksgiving” is more than just ideological disagreement.

“One reason why it’s hard for the left and the right to talk to each other and understand what the other side is saying is largely because it’s not simply just a difference in ideology, it’s a difference in worldview,” Oliver said.

This difference in worldview that Oliver describes is between what he calls “intuitionists” and “rationalists.”

“Intuitionists are people who utilize their gut feelings or intuition, and they’re heavily swayed by symbols and metaphors.

They’re the kinds of people who have a lot of supernatural beliefs and paranormal beliefs,” he said. “A rationalist has kind of an Enlightenment worldview. They rely on production, logic, facts, science.”

Having either an intuitionist or rationalist way of thinking is not necessarily exclusive to political belief. However, Oliver said that over the past 30 years, the rise of the evangelical right as a core constituency group within conservative circles has led the Republican Party to embrace the intuitionist worldview.

“As a consequence of that, you’ll see a lot more rhetoric on the right that expresses this kind of intuitionist worldview. And one of those types of rhetoric is conspiracy theories,” Oliver said.

From claiming that undocumented immigrants commit massive voter fraud to sending out a text message that Antifa supporters attack American homes, throughout the past four years, Trump has openly trafficked in and given rise to theories that have been continuously disproven. Among his most outspoken supporters include believers in QAnon, a far-right multi-level government conspiracy theory. “When [intuitionism] gets concentrated in the hands of a single party, like what we’re seeing now sort of in the concentration of Trump’s presidency, I think what you’re going to see is a recipe for disaster,” Oliver said.

This matters not just because of what voters believe, but also because of what they do not. The shared sense of reality that should anchor political discourse perishes.

For intuitionists, what are considered facts by rationalists may become meaningless.

They may not be swayed by statistics on coronavirus deaths, for example, because they won’t believe it: mainstream news developments contradict their reality.

Democracy, on the other hand, relies on an informed public responding to real-life facts in a rational way.

“Democracy is conditioned to things like compromise and a shared assessment of what a fact is. Intuitionism is based on the symbol and metaphor and emotion,” Oliver said. “Those types of tendencies usually express themselves in very undemocratic ways.... Their intuition is not very tolerant of dissent.”

How this deeply polarizing struggle and debate over reality will shake up the state of American democracy is yet to be known, but Oliver remains optimistic.

“I think Joe Biden is pretty likely to win the election and a big part of his appeal is from people who are rejecting this kind of intuitionist politics,” he said.

“I also sort of see, just on a day-to-day level, American democratic norms are still pretty strongly instilled in the vast majority of the country. Most people are pretty committed to democratic discourse, despite the polarization in our politics, you see a lot of small individual acts of decency. And those are the things that actually give me the greatest confidence,” Oliver said.

Professor Zhaotian Luo on Electoral Manipulation According to the Mueller Report released earlier this year, the 2016 election was influenced in some part by state-sponsored Russian online disinformation campaigns.

Many onlookers have been concerned with the security of U.S. elections and apparent ease with which they can be manipulated, given the unprecedented rise of mail-in ballots and dissemination of misinformation criticizing electoral procedures and legitimacy.

Assistant professor Zhaotian Luo, who studies the role of information in politics, said that majority rule elections are easy to manipulate because there is a clear result: either a candidate wins or loses. There are two main ways in which candidates manipulate elections. First, they could simply falsify the election results if they know they CONTINUED ON PG. 9

THE CHICAGO MAROON — NOVEMBER 4, 2020

9

“Mail voting does not systematically benefit either major party.”

CONTINUED FROM PG. 8

could not win honestly. But the second way is more subtle: Leading up to the election, the candidate could build confidence that they will win, such that their claim to victory goes unchallenged, no matter how narrow the margin.

Luo thinks that in the upcoming general election, the second way is a more likely outcome. In the case that “there is not a landslide victory, Trump might announce his own victory and that may be enough to persuade others from challenging him,” Luo explained. Or even if he loses by a slim margin, “he can accuse the other side of manipulation and that would make any election result suspicious.”

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, appointed by the Trump-appointed United States Postal Service (USPS )Board of Governors, had announced that “redundant or seldom used” mailboxes would be removed, but backlash from constituents forced a reversal of this policy. President Trump’s attempts to weaken the USPS serve to discourage eligible people from voting and undermine their confidence in the security of voting by mail. Luo said that if Trump is successful in changing the information conveyed by the election results by deterring voting, then “he might not be as popular as the voting result shows.”

Manipulating an election is a balancing act of scale, according to Luo. “If one manipulates too much, then people would lose faith

and make the conclusion that they don’t believe the election result and go to the streets to protest. One must manipulate just right so that although people have suspicion that he has manipulated election results, not to the extent that would make people willing to go on the street,” Luo explained.

Most attempts to manipulate the outcomes of an election are obscured enough to be easily overlooked or explained, which is why it can be difficult to form a defense. Luo views the debate over voter ID laws from the 2016 election as an example of subtle election manipulation.

“In the previous election, there was a debate about requiring ID in the poll station, specifically to make some Democrats more difficult to cast a vote for. The problem is that such an action as requiring an ID is totally constitutional and Republicans have a rationale for it. This kind of manipulation, which we could not even confidently categorize as manipulation, is the most difficult to prevent.”

Given Russian interference in the 2016 election and potentially in the upcoming 2020 election, Luo commented on the comparative magnitude of the threats, saying that “domestic manipulation is on a much bigger scale than foreign manipulation.”

Professor Anthony Fowler on Early Voting Mail-in-ballot counts so far show an unprecedented level of civic participation

before Election Day. Voting before Election Day this year was largely expanded because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and tens of millions of Americans have already voted.

However, the expansion of vote-by-mail has become a frequent point of contention this election cycle. Anthony Fowler, an associate professor in the Harris School of Public Policy, said that although voting by mail brings up new challenges for the election process, there is no reason to doubt its security.

“There are some reasons for me to be worried about mail voting, since there are additional security risks relative to in-person voting. For example, mail voting could make it easier for someone to cast someone else’s ballot, tamper with ballots, or coerce someone to vote in a particular way,” he said.

“However, there are lots of people working this election cycle to mitigate the risks, and there is currently no evidence of widespread fraud.”

Throughout the election cycle, Republicans and the Trump administration have repeatedly attacked the integrity of mail-in voting and reforms that make voting more accessible. Fowler chalked this up to a broader, more diverse voting demographic that may emerge through these changes.

“The evidence does suggest that if everyone voted, this would likely benefit the Democratic Party in the short term because young people, poorer people, and non-white people are much less likely to vote under

our current system,” Fowler said, and these groups are more likely to vote blue. Despite this fact, he adds that “studies find that mail voting does not systematically benefit either major party.”

Still, many Democrats hope that the current trajectory of early turnout is indicative of additional voters for Vice President Joe Biden. While almost half of all likely voters plan to vote early, a Washington Post-ABC poll conducted from October 6 through October 9 shows a sharp partisan breakdown over when people say they will cast their ballot. 64 percent of likely Biden voters said they planned on voting early. In comparison, 61 percent of likely Trump voters said they plan to vote on Election Day. Fowler warns against trying to make early predictions on the election outcome based on current early-voting turnout.

“It’s hard to know whether the increase in vote-by-mail and early voting is a sign that many people are eager to vote against an unpopular incumbent, or if the people who would have voted anyway are voting early because of the pandemic,” he said.

Right now, Fowler says that dispersing accurate information about voting to the public is one of the most important things government officials, as well as the media, should be doing to make voting as easy and as secure as possible.

“Trust in election results is perhaps the most important thing in a democracy,” Fowler said.

An Unprecedented Election: Voting in a Pandemic

By ANJALI PULLABHOTLA & NIHARIKA IYER Grey City Reporters

First-year Grace Lehto was jittery with excitement as she walked her absentee ballot to the drop-off box nearly two weeks before Election Day. Currently attending classes remotely, Lehto is registered in her home state of New Hampshire.

“New Hampshire may be small, but we have big energy,” she joked. “I chose to register in New Hampshire because every vote matters here, as we do tend to be a swing state.”

Lehto is not alone in her enthusiasm to

vote; in the days leading up to the general election, “Get Out the Vote” campaigns have reached full speed.

“If you’re eligible and able, you should vote,” Lehto, a voter registrar in the New Hampshire primary, declared with finality and without hesitation. “If you feel as though your vote is not impactful enough, you should involve yourself in local politics.

If you don’t see yourself represented, be the change you want to see.”

Not everyone, however, agrees that voting is imperative. First-year Chelsea Egbarin is registered in Florida, and though she is voting in this election, she understands that people may be disillusioned with the current

state of electoral politics.

“For a lot of people, there are no differences between the presidential candidates,” Egbarin said. “To folks in vulnerable communities—queer, Black, or Indigenous people of color—their lives are still endangered.

The rhetoric that everyone should be voting, or everyone should be a poll worker—well, not everyone has a voice there.”

Who has a voice?

As voting access restrictions disproportionately impact minority communities, voting rights organizations across Illinois are working to mitigate barriers to the voting booth among these populations.

Incarcerated citizens are one such demographic. A report from the Prison Policy Initiative (PPI) finds that “most people in jail are legally eligible to vote, but in practice, they can’t.” This “de-facto disenfranchisement,” according to the PPI, is the result of “widespread misinformation about eligibility, myriad barriers to voter registration, and challenges to casting a ballot.”

Chicago Votes is the official sponsor of election activities in Cook County Jail (CCJ), one of the largest single-site county pre-detention facilities in the nation. Initially, their role was limited to a registration drive once a month. Over time, however, the organization CONTINUED ON PG. 10

THE CHICAGO MAROON — NOVEMBER 4, 2020

10

“I think that young people have seen enough of elected officials and a system that doesn’t work for them, and [they] are fed up.”

CONTINUED FROM PG. 9

has undertaken in-person election coordination and civic education among inmates and committed to a statewide legislative advocacy platform through its “Unlock Civics” campaign.

In response to the growing concern about incarcerated citizens’ low voter participation, the Illinois legislature enacted Senate Bill (SB) 2090, a law that establishes a process under which detainees are provided accessible information to their voting rights, in August 2019.

In March, CCJ saw a 40 percent voter turnout rate, the first election in which SB 2090 was in place. Jail voter participation remained low, however, in other counties across Illinois.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois Advocacy Associate Michelle Hernandez attributes this low turnout to the lack of advocacy outreach, as jails were closed to the public due to COVID-19. Hernandez hopes, however, that voter turnout will increase in the general election.

Shifting towards digital advocacy As the COVID-19 pandemic has proved restrictive to Get Out the Vote advocates across Illinois, organizations have turned to virtual programming as a way to reach voters.

On campus, the student-run nonpartisan voter engagement organization UChiVotes continues to encourage students to register to vote and participate in the general election.

While in past years, representatives of the organization crowded Cobb Hall and the Reynolds Club to register voters, the operation has become virtual this year. The organization, an affiliate of the Institute of Politics, has hosted a digital “Why We Vote” campaign in league with faculty, the Organization of Black Students, and its trained voter ambassadors. It has also organized voter registration efforts through a moving art installation by artist Jenny Holzer.

Off-campus organizations have used similar tactics.

Chicago Votes Organizing Manager Alexandria Boutros wrote in an email to The Maroon that the organization has also gone digital.

“It has been a very big adjustment considering so much of our work involves being in

and a part of the community. We have fully transitioned our leadership development work and our Get Out the Vote Phone Banks to Zoom, and have been able to also find fun and creative ways to bring our Give A Shit Happy Hours (usually in a bar) to YouTube Live,” Boutros wrote.

Hernandez told The Maroon that the transition to digital advocacy has posed a challenge for the ACLU of Illinois’s efforts.

“Not everyone has access to the Internet.

We’ve kept in mind, then, that there are certain populations that we cannot reach solely through virtual outreach and have tried to partner with organizations that have more contact with these communities, instead,” Hernandez said.

Election legislation changes As advocacy has moved online due to the threat of viral transmission from repeated in-person contact, advocates have supported the expansion of vote-by-mail and early voting access to mitigate the health risks of large-scale in-person voting.

Held in March, the Illinois primary occurred just days after the coronavirus was officially declared a pandemic. Consequently, the Chicago Board of Elections, predicting fear among voters, suggested to the governor that in-person voting in the city be cancelled completely and a vote-by-mail option be pursued instead. The governor rejected the option.

During the Illinois primary, just 198,000 people cast ballots in-person by 5 p.m., while better turnout occurred among people casting ballots by mail (118,000) and through early voting (171,000).

Senate Bill 1863, in place for the duration of this election season, hopes to address the concerns raised in the primary and increase turnout in the general election.

First, the bill increases access to vote-bymail and early voting options. Vote-by-mail applications were delivered to all voters who have voted in an election since 2018. The barriers posed by the signature-matching process have also decreased. Election authorities have been directed to view signatures as matching upon first glance rather than not.

Furthermore, the law supports a public education campaign that works to ensure every Illinois resident is aware of how to guarantee their vote is counted.

Since the bill’s passing in May, 2,350,707 vote-by-mail requests have been processed with a 59 percent return rate, and 1,360,943 voters have voted early, with a total of 2,784,937 having already voted. Additionally, Illinois has seen record voter registration this year, with approximately 8 million registered voters. In comparison, 5,536,424 votes were cast in the 2016 general election.

Second, the bill declares Election Day a federal holiday. As a result of the declaration, schools, which are closed on November 3, can serve as polling stations, replacing nursing homes, where residents are at high risk of death due to COVID-19.

The bill also expands youth participation in the electoral process. 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds are able to serve as election judges this season. Usually, that older individuals fill those roles, but this year, the increased threat of COVID-19 to older people or those with underlying conditions makes the job riskier.

Chicago Votes has traditionally held a “Parade to the Polls” that transports thousands of college and high school students to voting locations. With the passage of the bill, its focus this year has been partnering with the Chicago Board of Elections to recruit 3,000 young election judges from local high schools and colleges.

“I think that young people have seen enough of elected officials and a system that doesn’t work for them, and [they] are fed up.

Chicago Votes has been working very hard to reach young people and ensure that we can dismantle any barriers that young folx might be facing/anxiety they may have. There has been a lot of effort to engage young people, and young folx have already been showing up in big numbers to the polls,” Boutros wrote.

Across Illinois, other advocacy groups have worked to mitigate the spread of misinformation. The League of Women Voters of Chicago (LWV Chicago) has been committed to spreading election information in a nonpartisan manner and advocating both for and against particular pieces of legislation.

LWV Chicago has hosted regular seminars to inform constituents, including one by Harris School of Public Policy’s Cyber Policy Initiative Executive Director Jake Braun on the relationship between cybersecurity and the election.

Concerns of voter and election fraud

in this election have been rampant on the national stage, though there has been no evidence of any tampering in the Chicago area. In 2017, the Brennan Center for Justice ranked the risk of ballot fraud at 0.00004 percent to 0.0009 percent based on studies of past elections.

Rebecca Carter is a legal fellow on voting rights with the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (CLCCRUL), a group of pro-bono lawyers who are working to actively combat election fraud and voter suppression, particularly among Chicago’s underserved residents. Carter said that some unexpected positive effects of the virtual setting have been “being able to speak with more people, doing more interviews, doing more panels, [and] presenting for more groups.”

“There have already been a significant number of calls with some issues that we are beginning to see voters have, [and we are] helping voters work through those issues,” Carter said. “Our Get Out the Vote’ is more so an effort than helps on Election Day and leading up to it through our election protection hotline.”

Chicago is using secure ballot drop-off boxes placed in easily available locations across Cook County and staffed by County Clerk employees to ensure the safety and security of the expected influx of mailed ballots. Over 50 early voting sites in and around the Chicago area were established, and grace period voting, which allows voters to register through early voting until the Monday before Election Day and which was passed by the Illinois legislature after the 2016 general election, are expected to contribute to voter turnout.

The CLCCRUL has focused on providing support for underserved communities, including those being held pre-trial in the Cook County Jail.

“If there are concerns that a community member has, then it’s important to take that seriously but also to empower them with information. That’s why we keep reiterating that there are secure drop boxes where people can drop votes off, that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent…. We want people to know that there are safe ways to go vote in person as well as by mail,” Carter said. “It [is] important to advocate for a variety of approaches for all persons to be able to vote safely, especially in the midst of a pandemic.”

THE CHICAGO MAROON — NOVEMBER 4, 2020

11

VIEWPOINTS Why We’re All Miserable Careerists The University prioritizes growth over sustaining healthy communities, and it wants students to do the same.

By NOAH TESFAYE The summer of 2020 was a season of unprecedented political education for our generation. To see so many students appear to dramatically shift their perspectives on issues like policing, prisons, and housing amid a pandemic made me confident we were taking a step forward. As a social science major, I saw my peers who typically only engage with theory in classes take steps to engage

with organizations to support their communities. It seemed like for once, there was a collective shift in the way we were thinking about applying our schooling toward something in the real world.

Yet, as we return back to classes, the University implicitly pushes us to drop those endeavors. We’re back to career advancement fairs, back to selective application clubs, and the University continues to tout its pre-professional programs.

In social science majors, in particular, we are encouraged to, time and again, focus on building our own sustainable career, instead of working to build sustainable communities. That is to say, we are told that if we immediately focus on building the best career, we can somehow miraculously come up with the solutions to provide for people’s immediate material conditions. The University’s actions exemplify this self-service over strengthening community, and

ultimately, students end up following suit in choosing to pursue careerism over collectivism.

Until recently, I bought into the University’s framing of career advancement as the single most important aspect of our schooling here. I was told that, as students, our goal should be to open up opportunities in the broadest way possible by prioritizing personal advancement at nearly any cost. But what are those costs? What are those decisions and how do they impli-

cate both ourselves and the University in reproducing harm?

For an example, we need to look no further than the University’s own relationship with growth and sustainable communities. This institution has historically prioritized and continues to prioritize its own growth and presence in the South Side at any cost. It does not care about building a sustainable community of fulfillment for people here. From CONTINUED ON PG. 12

Miles Burton, Editor-in-Chief Emma Dyer, Editor-in-Chief Caroline Kubzansky, Managing Editor Jessica Xia, Chief Production Officer The Maroon Editorial Board consists of the editors-in-chief and editors of The Maroon.

NEWS

DESIGN

Tony Brooks, editor Matthew Lee, editor Pranathi Posa, editor Justin Smith, editor

Suha Chang, head of production Matthew Chang, head designer Riley Hurr, design associate

GREY CITY

Gianni LaVecchia, chief financial officer Charlie Blampied, director of strategy Trent Carson, director of marketing Yeewin New, director of marketing Victor Doddy, director of development Kenneth Chu, director of operations

Alex Dalton, editor Avi Waldman, editor VIEWPOINTS

Gage Gramlick, editor Ruby Rorty, editor

BUSINESS

ONLINE

ARTS

Firat Ciftci, software engineer

SPORTS

Editor-in-Chief: Editor@ChicagoMaroon.com Newsroom Phone: (312) 918-8023 Business Phone: (408) 806-8381

Wahid Al Mamun, editor Alina Kim, editor Alison Gill, editor Thomas Gordon, editor Brinda Rao, editor COPY

James Hu, copy chief Cynthia Huang, copy chief Jason Lin, copy chief Ray Davies-Van Voorhis, copy chief Gabby Meyers, copy chief Charlotte Susser, copy chief

For advertising inquiries, please contact Ads@ChicagoMaroon.com or (408) 806-8381.

Circulation: 2,500. © 2020 The Chicago Maroon Ida Noyes Hall / 1212 East 59th Street Chicago, IL 60637

DARYA FOROOHAR

THE CHICAGO MAROON — NOVEMBER 4, 2020

12

“We as college students can recognize the apparatus that we are currently situated in and the unjust conditions that make that possible.”

CONTINUED FROM PG. 11

expediting gentrification with its invasive urban renewal projects to violent, racist policing of nearly 30 blocks of this city, the University’s actions send a clear message: We should seek to prioritize our own self-centered interests over seeking to create an equitable, just world.

As social science majors, we sometimes treat the aspiration to political work as the best way for us to contribute to solving the world’s problems. We can talk about oppressive systems and the implications of the violent empire that we live in all we want, but then we are taught that rather than strategizing

ways to topple or become free of these institutions, we should pursue success within them. We are taught to believe that being good individuals at the top of a system can magically correct, or at least substantially alter, the harm of that system (as if it hasn’t been insidious for hundreds of years).

We as college students can recognize the apparatus that we are currently situated in and the unjust conditions that make that possible. This I know because it’s one of the talking points of many conversations between UChicago students.

Often, these conversations are about policing, but they go fur-

ther, too. Students talk all the time about how they wish they were pursuing a major/career in something they are passionate about instead of seeking high-profit employment. But the conditions of a pre-professional university do not have to inhibit us from beginning to shift our vision beyond careerism. How can we begin to divest from our careerist mindsets? Through collectivism. That means deeply engaging with mutual aid by leveraging our resources to directly help people: for example, donating to people who need help paying their rent instead of to a national nonprofit. Collectivism manifests in studying

with your classmates because you want everyone to succeed together in a class. It extends to students seeking to forge meaningful relationships with people beyond the University. Find community beyond the oppressive confines of this institution.

If the University seeks to perpetuate its own preservation and wants to place its students in careerist systems that continue to enable unjust conditions, we as students consciously or unconsciously will continue to follow in that mindset unless we radically intervene and actively fight against the individualization of our schooling. The University will never grant us a

vision to build sustainable communities. Being a subversive participant in the academy is the only chance we have to find refuge and collective care beyond the confines of this institution, leveraging the privilege and access we’ve been granted.

We’re all we’ve got. Let’s continue that organizing, seeking to meet the material needs of people, and finding that sense of solidarity with one another.

Let’s make it a practice not just for the rest of the year, but for the rest of our lives.

Noah Tesfaye is a second-year in the College.

It’s Easy to Sink Into Apathy During the Pandemic. Don’t.

Amid the isolation of a mostly-remote quarter, we need to make a conscious effort to engage with the UChicago community.

By ANDREW FARRY You probably did not vote in the College Council elections. You may not have even known they were taking place. Don’t worry, this column isn’t about voting, or a more important upcoming election. This column is about apathy and dissociation. It’s about trying to construct a community in our little pods of isolation. But before I get to that, I want to tell you about the College Council election. This story is relevant, trust me, but it’s also funny and a little sad and it will put you in the right frame of mind for the rest of the argument.

In case you didn’t know, College Council is a part of Student Government and held elections earlier this quarter. At some point, the results were announced. I saw

a Facebook post with a little congratulations message for all the candidates but nothing else about it. Later, while procrastinating, I found the email prompting me to vote in the elections. It was from Max Freedman, a fellow student, and was sent on Friday, October 9.

I had indeed voted, although I admit it was an uninformed choice.

What I had not done before was click the link to the Student Government website to learn about the race and candidates. After ignoring a message from Firefox telling me that my connection was not secure, I arrived at a page listing the results from the 202021 Student Government elections.

After some cursory navigation through the Student Government website, which, by the way, is unnerving and a little hostile with its jet-black background and

monolithic white text, I learned absolutely nothing about what College Council might do. I discovered the results of the 202021 College Council elections. For the Class of 2022, which I happen to be a part of through no fault of my own, four representatives had been elected: Zebeeb Nuguse with 90 votes, Dinesh Das Gupta with 84 votes, John Fuentes with 67 votes, and Harry Gardner with four votes. A quick pause here to note that there are 1,814 students in the Class of 2022. You could probably work out some fairly amusing turnout percentages from that. Six people abstained from voting, an admirable display of democratic protest, which managed to outnumber the votes received by one of the victorious representatives. I learned from the website that Zebeeb became

chair of the council following the College Council election, which for some reason required her to vacate her seat. Her position on the College Council for the Class of 2022 then passed down to the person who had come in fifth.

Here, a problem presented itself.

There was a tie. Evita Duffy and Allen Abbott had both received 2 votes. College Council, I was told, would break this tie on October 20.

This situation I think, is beyond parody. two votes. By the way, Allen won.

College Council, or CC as it refers to itself, in an act of abbreviation characteristic of arcane bureaucracies, probably does something. In fact, it seems to have done good things in the past. This piece is not about CC, or the Kafkaesque Student Gov-

ernment website or even our “Undergraduate Liaison to the Board of Trustees.” Like I said up top, this column is about apathy and dissociation.

Before discovering that the results for the CC elections were fairly amusing, I did not care about them at all. I barely remembered that I had voted. A few days ago, I realised I had forgotten the names of the buildings on the quad. Perhaps you have, too. I live off campus, and the University of Chicago increasingly feels like an abstract concept, a descriptor appearing on the various pages I have to log into. I watch recorded lectures at 2x speed (which makes my professors sound like Ben Shapiro), and I know the names of around half the people in my discussion classes. My CONTINUED ON PG. 13

THE CHICAGO MAROON — NOVEMBER 4, 2020

13

“To regain that sense of inhabiting the vast, diverse, sometimes infuriating, often fascinating community that is the University of Chicago, you must perform it.”

CONTINUED FROM PG. 12

friends and I are no longer united by our role as fellow students. We’re just people who live near each other.

No wonder so few people voted in the CC elections. The pixelated, lagging, legless images who occupy my Zoom meetings for a few hours a week don’t seem part of my community. We are all remote. If you saw a person in your Zoom class on the street, if you walked directly by them on the quad, would you nod? Would you exchange a few words about your homework?

Or would you continue walking, unsure if you had actually recognized them beneath their mask?

Quarantine and isolation disintegrate community. The indefinable, oddly comforting feeling of leaving your class onto a quad full of people leaving their classes.

The feeling of being in a crowd of people who all share something with you, who all know what it is like to be in the Reg or write their first Hum essay. This is a community wider than friends and acquaintances. It’s a community of people you might only see in passing, but who nevertheless understand something about your life just as you understand something about theirs. This loss is inevitable in the reality of quarantine, and it results in feeling dissociated from the University and apathetic about all its peripheral concerns. There’s no real cure for it, but perhaps there’s a way to alleviate it.

Start by refamiliarizing yourself with the quad, trying to strike up friendships with people in your Zoom class, or even engaging with the barrage of University

emails you receive daily. Yes, that’s right, I’m telling you to vote in Student Government elections. That way, at some point you can look at the people in your class, all at their various desks with variously poor cameras, and know that they too opened the link to the weird voting website. That they too scrolled through all the candidates before inevitably clicking the people at the top of the list and calling it a day. Maybe you could even join some remote RSOs or attend one of the endless zoom lectures hosted by the University. These actions might feel artificial, and they are. In the absence of normality, community must be fabricated. The feeling of the organic community cannot be replicated, but it can be imitated, like how they make food in advertisements with shaving cream and paint. In

front of you, that burger would look nothing like the real thing, but viewed remotely, through a screen, it will do. To regain that sense of inhabiting the vast, diverse, sometimes infuriating, often fascinating community that is the University of Chicago, you must perform it. Accept the reality, but act out, perhaps self-consciously, the strange, stilted interactions of the online university. The RSO meetings, the masked interactions, and reaching out to strangers in your class will eventually seem natural, as, with an impressive sleight of hand, you trick yourself into forming a community.

It’s not watching people slip all over the quad on winter mornings, but at least it’s something.

Andrew Farry is a third-year in the College.

ARTS Memory, Art, and Performance: Three Perspectives on Leopoldstadt

By CLAIRE POTTER Arts Reporter What happens when memory fails to pass from one generation to the next? That is the question that University of Chicago professors Leora Auslander, Christine Mehring, and David Levin grappled with in the second seminar of the Deep Dive: Tom Stoppard’s Leopoldstadt series at Court Theatre. The speakers brought together their expertise in Jewish history, art history, and theater performance to discuss Stoppard’s latest play. A departure from the intellectual games of his other works, Stoppard’s epic tells the multigenerational story of the Merz family as it falls from the cultured bourgeoisie of fin-de-siècle Vienna to the haunted aftermath of the Holocaust. The play is the most Jewish of Stoppard’s works. For most of his life, Stoppard was ignorant of his family’s Jewish past in Czechoslovakia, having left it behind as a child war refugee. The speakers discussed how Stoppard mourns the death of

Jewish Vienna, thereby revealing his own relationship with a Jewish past he cannot fully identify with, much less recover.

In the 1990s, Stoppard discovered that he was Jewish. An unknown Czech relative approached him with a scrapbook filled with photographs of a family that he had never known he had. Soon, Stoppard discovered that most of his family had died in Nazi death camps. The album became a conduit of memory that connected him to his lost relatives, and he became determined to uncover the story of the family he saw memorialized in film. That pursuit of personal history eventually led him to the themes he explores in Leopoldstadt, and the album emerges as a recurring symbol in the play.

Auslander explained how an album takes the moments caught in photographs and makes a living narrative of family history. Yet that narrative is fragile—it depends on the memory of the viewer.

Art history professor Christine Mehring explained how the play explores photog-

raphy’s fraught relationship with memory. One character cannot remember the name of someone in a photograph in her family album. She calls the loss of memory a “second death.” This moment, Mehring argued, captures the transformation of photography “from this miraculous invention that you couldn’t quite fathom—that you suddenly had these people captured in their appearance forever” to something “omnipresent as to become excessive and begin to replace memory; not aid memory, but to drown memory.”

Although Leopoldstadt began with Stoppard’s interest in his own family history, it tells a very different Jewish history than his own. His parents lived in a Czech manufacturing village. His father was a doctor and his mother was a secretary.

Unlike the family at the center of Leopoldstadt, they did not mix with avant-garde art dealers or live in a luxurious apartment in Vienna at the height of its cultural golden age. Stoppard laments a lost society that his own family could not have known

or accessed.

“Free to write a play that refers to his life’s history but is not autobiographical,” Auslander explained, “[Stoppard] has told us which Jewish history he would have wished to have been his own—the vibrant world of the intellectual and cultural elites in interwar Vienna.”

Stoppard embraces the glamorous stereotypes around the cultured Jewish elite of Vienna, or at least the characters’ aspiration to those stereotypes. They are caught between the traditions of the 19th century and the possibilities of the 20th century. Stoppard describes the family apartment as “stuffy”—full of dated, heavy ornaments. Yet the characters strive to be cultured, to be in touch with the latest trends of the avant-garde. They argue over Freud and discuss a series of Gustav Klimt paintings that caused a stir at the University of Vienna. A young Klimt even paints a portrait of one of the play’s leading women.

CONTINUED ON PG. 14

THE CHICAGO MAROON — NOVEMBER 4, 2020

14

Is Leo the Jewish Leopold or the Christianized Leonard?

CONTINUED FROM PG. 13

Mehring explains how the painting’s meaning changes as the play leaves bourgeois fin-de-siècle Vienna behind. What was avant-garde in the early 1900s is already outdated in the 1920s. Later, the family fights to recover the confiscated painting from a museum, and it becomes a symbol of the status and wealth they lost to the Shoah. No matter how relevant an art object is when it is made, it will one day “lose that relevance and become an artifact.”

Despite all of its historically accurate references to high culture, Stoppard’s cliché depiction of Jewish history is a limited one. His play takes the name Leopoldstadt from the neighborhood of the city’s working-class Jewish population but ignores the existence of Viennese Jewish culture outside the elite. This omission could be a cause for criticism if the point of the play was to tell history. However, Auslander argued that it is more a “requiem for a lost world and a claim to affiliation with it than a history play.” It is a window into “the complex relation of the children and grandchildren of survivors of the Shoah to the people in the world that the Third Reich has stolen from them. The families, the histories, the lives they might have lived.”

The primary dramaturgical challenge of staging Leopoldstadt is its dizzying multitude of characters. As the play moves across time, characters age and require new actors. Each new generation pres-

ents unfamiliar faces. When the play premiered at Wyndam’s Theatre in London earlier this year, there were over 40 actors in the cast. Levin argues that the familial relationships are particularly, and intentionally, confusing in the last generation because Stoppard is calling into question a particular character’s claim to belonging to the family. Leo, whose name is emblazoned in the play’s title, is the outlier—the clean, young Brit among the few survivors of the family in the 1950s. As Levin said, Leo is the “autobiographical elephant in the room,” although it is difficult to determine just how much Stoppard identifies himself with Leo. Both the character and the playwright lost their fathers when they were young children, and both found refuge from the war with their mothers in Britain. They lost their accents and went to British schools. Their mothers’ Christian husbands became their adoptive fathers. Neither grew up with any connection to Judaism. Caught between two fathers, Leo is left with an unstable, contested identity.

Auslander, a Jewish historian, argued that Stoppard and Leo represent the consequences of the non-transmission of Judaism from one generation to the next.

She speculated that Stoppard’s mother may have not told her sons about their roots because she had, like the characters in the play, already distanced herself from her Jewish identity. In the years after the Holocaust, Auslander explains, “Judaism

may have been above all an extraordinarily dangerous attribute, rather than a rich and vibrant tradition and practice.”

Leo’s British upbringing and Jewish roots leave him caught between two identities. Levin described how the nickname “Leo” leaves room for ambiguity and contestation: is Leo the Jewish Leopold or the Christianized Leonard? Does he belong in the family tree of a Jewish Austro-Hungarian family, whose culture and history are foreign to him?

“It is a little unclear whether and how the Leo character is being indicted,” Levin

said, “whether there isn’t a sense of self-indictment in the notion of Leo becoming Leonard, of a Jewish Leo becoming a British and Christianized Leonard, rather than becoming a Leo who bears his proper paternal mandate as a Jewish mandate.”

As a play, Leopoldstadt claims fiction despite the autobiographical continuities between character and playwright. In its indictment of Leo, the play asks what it means to survive. It asks how survival can demand denying identity and ignoring family history, and yet leave the survivor in search of his past.

The play Leopoldstadt asks what it means to survive.

courtesy of

Court Theatre.

The 56th Chicago International Film Festival Goes Virtual

By ADRIAN RUCKER Associate Arts Editor Like practically everything else this year, the 56th annual Chicago International Film Festival (CIFF) was a little different from usual. What would normally be a bustling week-and-a-half of giddy film buffs swarming around AMC River East 21 was replaced by a series of online (and drive-in) screenings. Despite the festival’s virtual setting, CIFF nevertheless put on a dazzling array of films and events, featuring celebrated veteran filmmakers like Spike Lee, Tsai Ming-liang, and Werner Herzog, as well as rising stars such as

Magnus von Horn and Lili Horvát. While practically all of the screened films would be worth your time, here are a few highlights: Striding into the Wind (Ye Ma Fen Zong) Dir. Wei Shujun—China Part coming-of-age buddy road trip movie (think Y tu mamá también), part gorgeous landscape showcase, Striding into the Wind finds dead-end film school senior Kun (Zhou You) balancing social expectations, personal relationships, and his own desire for freedom and adventure as he comes into adulthood. After acquiring an old Jeep, Kun and his classmate

help their friend work on his thesis film, sell pop CDs for a construction mogul, and find transcendence in inner Mongolia. For what could seem like a meandering, directionless film, Striding into the Wind is highly entertaining, weaving together comedy, drama, and gorgeous cinematography into a fulfilling and self-complete work. Directly referencing influential auteurs like Wong Kar-wai, the film is also a love letter to the filmmaking practice, though not in a way that comes off as navel-gazing or pretentious. Director Wei Shujun is certainly someone to look out for as Chinese cinema increases its presence on the international film scene.

Memory House (Casa de Antiguidades) Dir. João Paulo Miranda Maria—Brazil Winner of the Roger Ebert award in the New Directors Competition category, Memory House tells the story of an indigenous-Black factory worker in a fictitious Austrian colony in Southern Brazil. Subject to racism and xenophobia, he discovers an abandoned house filled with folkloric memorabilia, provoking an inner transformation. Powerful metaphors and a surreal final sequence make for an unsettling and visually rich story of identity and resistance. Although the pacing pushes the boundaries of “meditative” and borders on CONTINUED ON PG. 15

THE CHICAGO MAROON — NOVEMBER 4, 2020

15

Director Shujun Wei is certainly someone to look out for. how its characters have become trapped in its inferno.

CONTINUED FROM PG. 14

“slow,” Memory House is an artful statement on contemporary social issues. ’Til Kingdom Come Dir. Maya Zinshtein—Israel, Palestine After addressing racism in Israeli society through the lens of football with Forever Pure (2016), director Maya Zinshtein returns with another critical documentary focused on Israel, this time tracing the multilayered relationship between American evangelical Christians and Zionists. ’Til Kingdom Come investigates why pockets of the United States, collectively amounting to approximately 30 percent of the country’s population, are some of the world’s most ardent supporters of the Israeli state, even more than American Jews.

The conclusion is found in the intersection of apocalyptic prophecy and American foreign policy, with many evangelicals believing that the existence of the state of Israel is a prerequisite condition for the return of Christ and the battle of Armageddon—a prophecy that concludes with Jews either accepting Christ as their savior or facing damnation. Although the fulfillment of this prophecy rests on the end of the world, its short-term objectives align well enough with those of Zionists, some of whom are willing to welcome such support. The film is filled with shocking scenes that show the depth of this connection, with many of the United States’ most prominent evangelical politicians and business leaders explicitly espousing belief in such a prophecy, which in turn translates directly into financial support for Israel. Although there are certainly criticisms to be had with the film, the topic is handled well, and its stakes are high enough such that anyone could benefit from viewing.

By ZAKIR JAMAL Arts Reporter Careless Crime Dir. Shahram Mokri—Iran An intricate, moving depiction of the Cinema Rex Fire, a key trigger of the 1978 Iranian revolution, Careless Crime weaves together threads from the instability of the present day and the rising fervor 42 years ago to present a narrative both obscure and

Director Shujun Wei stuns with his debut feature. courtesy of London Film Festival

Will a meterorite wipe out humanity? courtesy of Slant Magazine directly political. The film’s plot begins with a man, Takbali (Abolfazl Kahani), searching for psychiatric medication. When his attempts are stymied by United States sanctions, he is directed to a black-market dealer.

In lieu of payment, the dealer (portrayed as a 20-foot-tall puppet in one of the film’s more obvious metaphors) sends him on a quest, pulling Takbali into a current flowing directly towards the fire.

Careless Crime treats time and memory as one. Characters are not confined to any of the film’s numerous time periods but move between them in the same way that the melody of a long-forgotten song can pull you into the past. Information gathered about when

certain events happen must be inferred from a set of context clues that immerse you in Iran’s cultural memory. In 1978, people still smoked cigarettes in movie theaters. Western snacks were sold at the concession. Before and after the revolution, a deep anxiety gripped moviegoers, due to the pervasive censorship, and, in the present day, to the memory of the fire.

The Cinema Rex fire itself killed at least 420 people. It was a national tragedy which the Shah blamed on “Islamic Marxists” but which most Iranians blamed on the Shah.

No motive for the crime was ever definitively established, and Careless Crime doesn’t attempt to offer one. Instead, it dramatizes

Fireball: Visitors from Darker Worlds Dir. Werner Herzog and Clive Oppenheimer — United Kingdom, United States Fireball: Visitors from Darker Worlds sees directors Werner Herzog and Clive Oppenheimer set off across the world, examining the vastly different yet somehow convergent ways in which people respond to the arrival of meteorites on Earth. By turns poetic, scientific, comedic, and historical, Fireball has a deep commitment to treating each facet of human interaction with meteorites on its own terms. In their interview with scientists working at the watchtower-like observatory on Haleakalā, Maui, the filmmakers seem almost obsessed with the possibility of a meteorite wiping out humanity. While interviewing a Jesuit priest who, purely by chance, was assigned to a town with one of the world’s best space object collections, Oppenheimer’s mind boggles at the man’s simultaneous appreciation of God and nature.

At the movie’s close, a group of aboriginal people on Mer Island, Australia, revive an almost-forgotten dance wherein performers hold bunches of flaming brush in honor of the meteorites they see overhead, which, for them, represent death and the fortunate spiritual passage into the afterlife.

Herzog’s narration is passionate and, at times, hysterically funny. He makes for a compelling guide to a world that is less isolated from the rest of the universe than you might have initially thought. Ultimately, it is his love for the subject matter which makes the movie. Although there is no explicit through line, the filmmakers’ reverent interest is more than enough to pull Fireball together.

Dear Comrades!

Dir. Andrei Konchalovsky—Russia Dear Comrades! tells the story of Lyuda (Yuliya Vysotskaya), a Soviet bureaucrat, as her family becomes entangled in the 1962 Novocherkassk Massacre, in which soldiers opened fire on striking factory workers. Lyuda initially takes a harsh line on the strike, going so far as to call in the army. However, her view begins to shatter once she learns that her daughter may have been one of the strikers who was shot.

Dear Comrades! makes a number of CONTINUED ON PG. 16

THE CHICAGO MAROON — NOVEMBER 4, 2020

16

“Any Crybabies Around?” resigns itself to an almost stifling stagnation.

CONTINUED FROM PG. 15

striking stylistic choices. The entire film is letterboxed and shot in black-and-white, giving the impression that it was made at the time of the massacre. Moreover, during its most violent scenes, it takes an almost cartoonishly comedic tone. Whirling carnival music plays in the background as terrified and dying workers run and crawl on screen, transformed into a distant, emotionless triviality in the same way that the state distanced itself from the ugliest parts of its history.

Konchalovsky has been directing films in Russia for nearly 60 years, and his ability to depict the country as it stands is uncanny.

In a striking contrast to certain American portrayals of the post-Stalin Soviet Union (The Death of Stalin comes to mind), Konchalovsky does not attempt to reduce the tragedy to a conflict of morality between cynical communists and incipient liberal-democratic elements. Instead, he treats the drama and the players on their own terms. Even as they openly march against the Soviet state, the striking workers carry pictures of Lenin and red flags. Lyuda herself yearns for the order of the Stalin years, believing that the former leader would have willingly improved the condition of the workers. Characters are sensitively located within the Soviet ideological ecosystem and thus must negotiate their own terms with communism. It is with this sympathy and humanity that Dear Comrades! resoundingly succeeds.

The Columnist Dir. Ivo van Aart—The Netherlands Part revenge fantasy and part social issue film, The Columnist follows Femke (Katja Herbers), a writer beleaguered by the online harassment she’s received since writing an article denouncing the Netherlands’ Zwarte Piet blackface Christmas tradition.

When her friends show little sympathy toward her and the police patronizingly tell her to ignore the hate, she decides to hunt down and kill the malicious commenters.

While The Columnist is generally entertaining, it fails to even mildly scrutinize its protagonist, undermining the (justifiably unsubtle) point that it tries to make. Not only does Femke never have to deal with the logistical problems of being a serial killer (every murder is executed so smoothly that she’s never forced her to contemplate her ac-

tions), but she never even considers whether murder is a correct, much less an effective, response. While perhaps excusable on the grounds that slasher flicks aren’t meant to be realistic, this lack of consideration deprives the film of any real substance. Sure, the film knows that killing is bad—Femke’s daughter is horrified to discover evidence of her crimes—but that seems to encompass all the harsh words on the subject, or overall lack thereof. We are presented with no information about why Femke chose to deal with her problem specifically by way of murder.

I struggle to piece together any message of import on the actual issue of online harassment, aside from the idea that it makes people very upset. What’s left is a bewildering sequence of violence that may be fun but that lacks reason for taking up a full movie.

By VERONICA CHANG Head Arts Editor Any Crybabies Around?

Dir. Sato Takuma—Japan Any Crybabies Around? opens and closes on Namahage, a Japanese New Year’s tradition practiced by residents of Akita’s remote Oga Peninsula; men dress up as masked oni (Japanese ogres) to scare young children into behaving. The film’s protagonist, Tasuku (Nakanao Taiga), appears drunk and naked on national television during Namahage and embarrasses his local community.

He runs away to Tokyo, away from his wife and new daughter, and the film skips ahead to two years later, as Tasuku attempts to return home. Functioning as both a character study and quiet meditation on small town life—its claustrophobia, quiet, and layers of ritual and traditions—Any Crybabies Around? follows Tasuku as he attempts to reconnect with the life he left behind.

Like his protagonist, director Sato Takuma left Akita for Tokyo in his 20s. He draws on personal experience to portray the quiet melancholy of shrinking rural towns and the desperation to uphold traditions like Namahage. Yet at times, as echoes of the past constantly spill over into the present, the film resigns itself to an almost stifling stagnation. Over and over, Tasuku returns to the beach where he passed out drunk on that fateful New Year’s.

He watches silently as the shore curves into a line of blinking windmills, waves washing over the sand and back out to sea.

Tasuku attempts to reconnect with the life he left behind. courtesy of A sahi Days Dir. Tsai Ming-liang—Taiwan Intentionally un-subtitled, minimalist, and at times achingly passive, Days is the sort of film one might expect as a photo exhibit or art gallery: a series of seemingly disparate long-shots, lending audiences a glimpse into two characters’ lives as they come together, briefly intertwine, and part ways. It’s true-to-form for director Tsai Ming-liang, a slow-cinema auteur whose films can be difficult to sit through for those unused to their pacing and style.

Each shot is carefully composed, vignette-style, with barriers: Walls, railings and windows all act as boundaries, as if the camera and the audience by extension are allowed only the barest glimpse into the protagonists’ lives. Despite the intense, almost paralyzing, focus on each shot, watching the film feels isolating; Whiteand-blue lights flood almost every scene, as alienating as the film’s lack of music or dialogue. The film’s sole moment of warmth comes from a scene where one character gifts a music box to the other, the room cast in shadow but for the yellow glow of a lamp. The music box returns again in one of the film’s final scenes: it belies a lingering, aching sadness, Tsai’s focus clear amidst the otherwise frustrating ambiguity and pacing.

The Woman Who Ran Dir. Hong Sang-soo—South Korea The Woman Who Ran stars Kim Min-

hee, director Hong Sang-soo’s frequent collaborator and romantic partner, as Gam-hee, who visits three other women in a slice-of-life character study. Throughout the film, Gam-hee catches up with different women in her life as they drink, eat, talk, and are reminded constantly about how terrible men are. As the women converse, they are frequently interrupted by unwanted men, whose faces are obscured from the camera. It’s a surprisingly revealing look at gender dynamics and femininity, even if at times clumsy and awkward in its handling.

The Woman Who Ran feels like what would happen if you made “lofi hip hop radio - beats to relax/study to” into a movie.

Time is straightforwardly linear, conversations quietly fulfilling, the ending a return to an earlier scene in the film as Gam-hee watches an empty shoreline in an empty theatre. It’s the sort of film you long for when trapped in your house during a pandemic…but would forget the simple pleasure of otherwise.

In many ways, the 56th Chicago Film Festival gave audiences a look at the new, COVID-19 film industry—halting, virtual, but tentatively moving forward. As more and more blockbuster releases are delayed in anticipation of a vaccine that might be a while yet, the festival offered the chance to step back and enjoy perhaps the final few films from a pre-COVID world. We encourage everyone to watch any of the films reviewed above when available.