VOICE The Georgetown
B-12.00 -- Trim to 10.00Wx11.00D - CMYK - Georgetown
February 19, 2016
1
2
FEBRUARY 19, 2016
THE GEORGETOWN VOICE Volume 48 • Issue 11
staff editor-in-chief Daniel Varghese Managing editor Kevin huggard news
executive editor Christopher Castano Features editor Graham piro news editor liz teitz assitant news editors lilah burke, caitlyn cobb, thomas stubna
culture
executive editor Joseph pollicino Leisure editor Brian mcMahon assistant leisure editors Tatiana Lebreton, Caitlin Mannering, Maneesha Panja, Sarika Ramaswamy Sports editors Alex boyd, robert ponce Assistant sports editors Santul Nerkar, Tyler pearre, phillip steuber
opinion
Executive editor chris almeida voices editor charles evain assistant voices editor Joseph Dipietro, Leila Lebreton Columnists Louisa Christen, Yafet Negash, Austin Stollhaus, The Knights of Columbus
“Let’s get physical” By Patricia Lin
contents
Editorials
4
The Tragedy that is Hong Kong Kenneth Lee
5
Carrying On: The Accidental Hoya Patricia Lin
6
Lessons from Literature and Talking Tech Louisa Christen and Yafet Negash
7
halftime
Leisure editors Mike bergin, jon block assistant leisure editor danielle hewitt Sports editors Jay benjamin, Matt jasko assistant sports editors jonny amon, chris dunn
design
Executive editor megan howell cover editor patricia lin Spread editor johnny jung Photo editor Brooke dudek assistant design editors Emma francois, alli kaufman, abbey Roberts, eleanor sugrue, vance vaughn
copy
8
copy chief Anna Gloor editors Clara Cecil, Claire Goldberg, Michelle Kelly, Isabel Lord, Bethania Michael, Hanh Nguyen, Kate Phillips, Greer Richey, Dana Suekoff, Suzanne Trivette, Gabriella Wan
Unlacing Georgetown’s Relationship with Nike Caitlyn Cobb and Santul Nerkar
10
online editor sahil nair social media editors naba rahman, tiffany tao
Service Beyond the Hilltop: CSJ Turns 15 Thomas Stubna
13
Hunches and Hopes Leisure Staff
14
GUWIL Builds Professional Community on Campus Michael Bergin
online
Staff writers
Ben barrett, amanda christovich, brendan crowley, elizabeth cunniff, isabel echarte, margaret gach, nicholas gavio, anna gloor, andrew granville, christian hallmark, susanna herrmann, cassidy jensen, noah nelson, brendan pierce, justin plumb, Brendan saunders, isaiah seibert, José Villalobos, tyler walsh
staff designers
erin annick, natalia campos, april hyein choi, samantha lee, andrea leng, may li, kyua park, angela qi, lindsey reilly, morgan trevett editor@georgetownvoice.com Leavey 424 Box 571066 Georgetown University Washington, DC 20057
2
The opinions expressed in The Georgetown Voice do not necessarily represent the views of the administration, faculty or students of Georgetown University, unless specifically stated. Columns, advertisements, cartoons and opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Board or the General Board of The Georgetown Voice. The university subscribes to the principle of responsible freedom of expression of its student editors.
business
general manager tim annick senior associate, finance and alumni outreach naiara parker senior associate, accounts and sales jessica ho
3
THE GEORGETOWN VOICE
read more on georgetownvoice.com Small Space, Big Talent: Spagnuolo Gallery Showcases Wickiser’s Versatility Erika Bullock reviews the Ralph Wickiser exhibit currently running in Georgetown’s Spagnuolo Gallery. The exhibit showcases Wickiser’s transition from representational pieces to more abstract ones, all while featuring the thoughtful observations of Georgetown students in the Art and Museum Studies department. Erika Bullock
Prisons and Justice Initiative discusses mass incarceration and prison reform José Villalobos covers the Prisons and Justice Initiative’s inaugural event, a panel on problems and solutions in the criminal justice system. José Villalobos
The 250: “Memento” Danielle Hewitt and Chris Castano review Christopher Nolan’s Memento in this week’s edition of The 250, a weekly podcast in which voice staffers review films from the IMDb Top 250. moviehole.net
The NCAA’s Postseason Problem Nick Gavio’s piece from this week: How the NCAA’s suspension of head coach Jim Boeheim is helping Syracuse pad their NCAA Tournament résumé. USA Today Sports
B-12.00 -- Trim to 10.00Wx11.00D - CMYK - Georgetown
3
EDITORIALS
4
FEBRUARY 19, 2016
Just Do It
Holding the Swoosh Accountable Nike has long enjoyed a special type of relationship with Georgetown’s athletics programs. As noted in this week’s feature, titled “In Foul Trouble: Unlacing Georgetown’s Relationship with Nike,” this partnership goes back to the glory days of Hoya basketball in the 1980s. Yet, given Nike’s record of labor abuses, many have rightfully questioned the wisdom of a Jesuit institution pairing itself so closely with the apparel company. This Editorial Board believes that students, and especially student athletes, should make clear to the University that they do not approve of this partnership. Last semester, an image tweeted by activist Jim Keady depicted a group of Georgetown student athletes demonstrating their displeasure with this sponsorship by covering up the Nike logos on their University-provided sneakers. This action followed a Nov. 9 discussion led by Keady, during which he said that Nike sweatshop employees are paid only $1.25 a day. The logo cover-up has come at a time of increasing student-athlete activism at Georgetown and across the country. Student athletes have begun to use their unique position of power among students to speak out about the issues they find most pressing. Last season, we saw our basketball team emerge onto the Verizon Center court for a game against Kansas wearing warm-up shirts that read, “I Can’t Breathe”—the
final words of Eric Garner, who died after being placed in a chokehold by a New York City police officer. At the University of Missouri, as protests spread across campus following acts of racial aggression, players on the football team threatened to boycott their games if the protesters’ concerns were not addressed. At the end of it all, both the President of the University of Missouri system and the Chancellor of the flagship Columbia University campus had resigned. Student athletes have a much greater stage than most of us on campus. Events here at Georgetown and at other universities have shown that student athletes can elevate issues beyond the reach of normal campus protests. Nike’s past abuses are many. Given that it has decided not to allow inspectors from the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) to access its facilities, it cannot be assumed that the problems have been resolved. Furthermore, Nike’s refusal to pay employees a living wage, as outlined in Georgetown’s Code of Conduct, casts serious doubt on the compatibility of the company’s practices and this university’s values. This Editorial Board asks all students at Georgetown to educate themselves on the troubling history of labor abuses at Nike. We should question why our university chooses to align itself so closely with a company that refuses to abide by its own codes for such partnerships.
Student athletes, with their large audience and place within the Athletics Department, have a unique opportunity to bring these issues to light. This Editorial Board would encourage them to do so. That said, we know that student-athletes face risks for such actions. They should not have to worry about losing scholarships or positions for engaging in activism that advocates for the University’s values. We hope that, in the future, will we see many more covered swooshes in our social media feeds.
Tyler Pearre
Free Speech Tabled A Need for New Rules at the Law Center The law is blind, but it need not be mute. At the Georgetown University Law Center, however, students have found their expression of political speech blocked by the administration. This past semester, an informal group of law students formed in support of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ bid for president. In September, their application to table in support of Sen. Sanders inside a Law Center building was denied. Then, in October, they set up a table with posters and fliers advocating for Sen. Sanders just outside the Law Center’s McDonough Hall. They were asked to leave by University staff after a short time. In both cases, the Law Center argued that its status as a non-profit institution of higher learning prevents it from endorsing political candidates or allowing its resources to be used for this purpose. The Office of Student Life cited the Law Center’s “Student Organization Policy on Partisan Political Activities” in making its decision, a policy which includes a section reading, “candidate campaigning and solicitation, including transmission of campaign materials over the internet, leaflet distribution, and display of posters, is not allowed anywhere on Law Center property or using University servers or equipment.”
The group of Sanders supporters then appealed to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). In an email to the Voice, a representative from FIRE wrote that the Law Center’s tax status “prohibits the school, not its students or student organizations, from participating in a campaign. Guidance from the IRS recognizes that students are not presumed to speak for their school when they campaign for a chosen candidate. A university does not have to put in place a ban on campaigning by students in order to protect its status as a tax-exempt organization.” Regardless of the strength of the Law Center’s argument, the situation offers an easy remedy. This Editorial Board calls on the Georgetown University Law Center to establish a freespeech zone, similar to the one which exists on Red Square, that would guarantee its students space for political activism. A free-speech zone would provide a long-term solution to the issue raised by the group of Sanders supporters while in no way threatening the Law Center’s tax status. Without it, we will likely see the continued clashing of the administration and politically-minded students, both during this election cycle and in the ones that follow. Considering the simplicity of the solution, it is time to address this issue. It would be a shame to see it left off the ballot. DAniel Varghese
4
5
THE GEORGETOWN VOICE
VOICES
After the Umbrella Movement What Became of Hong Kong The Lunar New Year is a time of fun and celebration in Hong Kong. Everyone suddenly becomes rich and fabulous; families gather around food, friends go to the massive, open-air flower market bazaars; children receive their annual income of red packets; and grandparents sit in front of the television to be lectured by fortune tellers. This year was different. Last week, purportedly acting to defend the cultural artifact of street food, a group of demonstrators, rallied mostly through social media networks of people who want to defend “local” Hong Kong culture, violently fought with police officers throughout the night of the first day of the new year. In an online video that I will never forget, an injured police officer laid still on the concrete sidewalk, while a young man threw a large, orange trash can at him, epitomizing his blood-boiling anger at the representatives of a hated government that had long lost the trust of an entire generation. It made for astonishing television. It is easy to jump to the conclusion that Hong Kong’s political environment has become irrevocably toxic since the “Umbrella Movement” protests in 2014. That is partly true. The current government, led by Leung Chun-ying, has demonstrated again and again that it will seize upon every opportunity to curry favor to Xi Jinping rather than to actually act in the interests of the people of Hong Kong. In his latest policy address, akin to an American State of the Union, Leung decided to wax lyrical about China’s “One Belt, One Road” vision instead of responding to the international outcry over the mysterious disappearance of five employees of a bookstore selling books about scandals in the Chinese Communist Party. This was made worse by the fact that Hong Kong’s economy has little to do with the Central Asian countries involved in that project. Often after I tell friends and acquaintances where “I come from,” they ask me if I think Hong Kong is a part of China. This is a silly question, because there is no doubt that the city is de jure part of China. But there are some things some people in this city treasure because they cannot find them anywhere else in China: the freedom to discuss and publish what you want in universities, the rule of law, the old tea restaurants with delicious noodles and milk tea run by cranky old ladies. Even if these things continue to persist to some extent in Hong Kong, the city’s government, with its ties to an elite and privileged class allied with those in power in Beijing, has consistently failed to inspire confidence in its potential to allow the continued thriving of what once made Hong Kong the “Pearl of the Orient”. In recent years, a number of militant and activist political groups have spawned online, ostensibly to protect Hong Kong’s “local” values. They want to protect the privileged status of Cantonese. They want to drive out tourists and immigrants from mainland China. Nostalgic about British colonial rule, they wave the Union Jack around in protests and publish bestsellers about how Hong Kong should be a city-state. On the surface, their hopes and dreams connect directly with the disappointment of some of Hong Kong’s people and to the government’s policy failures. But it is worth pondering: what kind of Hong Kong do they really want?
Sam Lee
If the price of gaining a Hong Kong identity is to master Cantonese and to look like a Hong Konger, then what of the tens of thousands of Hindu, Sikh, Nepalese, and Muslim immigrants who have been here since the 1840s, many of them illiterate in Chinese and in poverty? Or the hundreds of thousands of Filipinos, Indonesians, and Thai housekeepers who are deprived of labor rights and have to fight in court to seek damages for torture and malnourishment from their employers? And do they seriously want Hong Kong to return to the motherly arms of the British Empire because white old men can run the city better? How does one laugh at Donald Trump’s racist supporters, and then make the same reactionary and racist comments about “locusts” from mainland China? The fundamental question remains: what does it mean to be a Hong Konger? Its inhabitants occupy a cosmopolitan place that has long been a symbol of progress and development, despite its gender discrimination in the workplace, a dearth of LGBTQ rights, and huge wealth inequality. But if a discriminatory and exclusionary Hong Kong is what these groups want to keep Hong Kong “local,” I want to have nothing to do with them. There is nothing to be proud of about a society dominated by these ugly, shameful, nativist organizations. The tragedy is, the Chinese government will think that Hong Kong is growing restive and separatist. And the tragedy is, Leung Chun-ying will let China interfere more and more with Hong Kong’s affairs, further fanning the angry violence of these young, frustrated activists. Lather, rinse, and repeat.
What does it mean to be a Hong Konger?
BY KENNETH LEE
He is a Junior in the SFS.
B-12.00 -- Trim to 10.00Wx11.00D - CMYK - Georgetown
7
6
FEBRUARY 19, 2016
Burning Issues Unpaid is Unethical
Carrying On: Voice Staffers Speak
The Accidental Hoya A Joke Gone Too Far My Georgetown application was intended as a joke. After wrangling with the Common App for weeks and submitting more essays, SAT scores, and portfolios than I can count, I grew increasingly apathetic, and knew that my chances of getting into Georgetown were limited—I was never the president of any clubs, much less my school, or enrolled in an IB program. I never played a sport, or interned at a company, and I barely scraped the 15 hours of community service required for my diploma. I didn’t know what Vineyard Vines was and had no interest in interning on the Hill. I had planned on spending four years giving stick and poke tattoos, inhaling charcoal dust, and buzzing off my hair in strange patterns at art school. The lingering doubt that art wasn’t the right career path for me was what prevented me from applying exclusively to art schools. In the spirit of sticking it to the man, or what I imagined to be a WASP’y admissions officer, I submitted to Georgetown an art portfolio almost entirely composed of satanic symbolism. All my image sizes were 666, I had thirteen pieces, and many were either subtle or blatant criticisms of religious institutions. In my SFS essay, I cited abortion as an effective solution to many global issues, including gender disparity and climate change. Looking back, I question why I wasted an incredible amount of time, energy, and money on a school everyone knew I might get rejected from. But in the haze of existential crises and emotional trauma that come with college application season, I had convinced myself that, at the very least, my future art friends and I could laugh about sending an anti-religious application to a Jesuit university. My Georgetown application was all fun and games until I received my acceptance letter. The information was so unexpected that for a week after its arrival I was convinced that someone was trying to scam me into paying a 900 dollar deposit, or that an admissions officer wanted to reform me. What I did next was even more unexpected—I payed the deposit to Georgetown instead of
6
Austin stollhaus
RISD, the design school I had dreamt of attending since childhood. My image of Georgetown as a wading pool for future politicians and businessmen was solidified when I arrived in August. I couldn’t fathom how six thousand students all wanted to be president, or why bagging groceries and serving coffee was the most prestigious activity on campus. By the end of my first month at Georgetown, I told myself that I would transfer if someone mentioned Plato’s Republic one more time. In a school seemingly stuffed to the brim with type-A, pre-professional government majors, I stood out more than I hoped to. But I also made the mistake of convincing myself that I was not as intelligent, successful, or competent as other students because I didn’t fit the mold. I was scared that others viewed me as an imposter—because of my joke application and because I didn’t belong. I was more scared that they were right. My insecurities were telling me that wanting to be recognized as something more than my talent as an artist was foolish. When people ask me why I chose Georgetown instead of art school, I am never sure how to respond. I always say that I have a habit of pursuing what I’m bad at—I believe that living without challenges is not living at all, and I take pleasure in feeling overwhelmed. But I don’t push myself due to some internal need to do well—I want to demonstrate to myself, and to everyone else, that I am not less capable than others just because I am not the typical Georgetown student. I still don’t own any apparel from Vineyard Vines and never will. I maintain that quarter zips are the work of the devil, and I don’t understand what GUSA is or how it works. I don’t even know why I was accepted. But I like to believe that I belong here just as much as anyone else, because of the place I have carved out for myself at Georgetown.
BY PATRICIA LIN
She is a freshman in the SFS.
E
very Hoya has heard of the Hillternship. The opportunity to work at Capitol Hill itself, serving under the legislators who make the running of this country possible. It looks great on resumes. It provides invaluable experience, especially for those hoping to work in politics at some point in their lives. And if you’re from an underrepresented state, like my native Kentucky, competition is so low that you’re practically guaranteed an internship. The catch? You won’t see a dime for your work. All over D.C., students are offered the chance to work parttime jobs for no more compensation than a resume boost and a vague promise of “experience!” These offers only seem to apply to college students, some of the most vulnerable workers in the job market; you wouldn’t catch a thirtyyear-old mother working a job that wouldn’t even pay her rent. Simply put, unpaid internships are exploitative. They take advantage of college students, part-time workers with weak resumes, and offer them the chance to build job experience in a way that treats them as the cheapest possible labor and disrespects the worth of their work. In exchange, they offer “experience”—something that every job offers by definition. They make these offers to us because they know they can take advantage of us— and they make it only to students, because no one else would take it. No one else can afford to prioritize “experience” over financial stability. Now in fairness, these internships may translate to better jobs in the long run. College students are disadvantaged in this job market– almost no one in college can meet the standards of an employer who wants five years’ experience, and their internships may help to offer students the competitive edge to land a paying job. But the problems of a job market skewed against students aren’t solved by taking advantage of those who are already disadvantaged. In fact, this
actually makes the problem worse— it sets a precedent that students are expected to volunteer their labor for nothing before working up the experience to get a “real” job. It delegitimizes students’ work. It treats students as non-adults. And because students are disadvantaged in the job market, we’re also disadvantaged financially, and a job that pays absolutely nothing doesn’t help. Additionally, the playing field itself is slanted. Students who don’t have to work could certainly manage an unpaid internship, with a little financial help from mom and dad. But what about low-income students who can’t afford not to work for a semester? What about students whose families require them to help pay tuition? Students for whom paying work isn’t just a source of pride, but a necessity? The unpaid internship system favors wealthy students over competent and motivated ones. And if you’re poor, you can’t take “experience” to Safeway. I realize that a number of government offices are perpetually underfunded and can’t afford to pay students for their labor. But frankly, that is not our problem. Perhaps Congress ought to mothball a couple of jet fighters or borrow a few bucks from China if they can’t budget enough to actually pay their employees, but we students should not be expected to pick up the slack. Not without fair payment. Not all unpaid work is bad. If you truly believe in the cause you’re working for, and you’re willing to dedicate your time and energy to it for nothing but that warm, fuzzy feeling in your heart, Godspeed. And of course, charity work and volunteerism are incredibly noble pursuits. But your senator is not a soup kitchen, and unpaid internships should be the exception, not the rule. You should never feel compelled to offer your labor for free just because you’re a student. And you should never be told—even by your government—that your work has no value.
7
THE GEORGETOWN VOICE
Louisa Christen
Ye of Little Faith
“
True religion? All the religions are true insofar as they make those people who profess them live spiritually, insofar as they console them for having been born to die, and for each people the truest religion is theirs, the one that has made them.” -Saint Emmanuel the Good, Martyr, Miguel de Unamuno Saint Emmanuel the Good, Martyr, is the spiritual magnum opus of Miguel de Unamuno, a Spaniard who explored almost every style of writing at the beginning of the 20th century. It is a breathtakingly profound and heart-wrenching account of the author’s own struggles with Catholic faith, told through the character of Saint Emmanuel. Emmanuel, the priest for the small village of Valverde de Lucerna, wholeheartedly dedicated himself to the spiritual, physical, and emotional well- being of the people. He hides his persistent existential doubts behind a paradoxically genuine façade of faith and direction. His agonizing struggles represent those of people raised in a religion to which they no longer prescribe, and his martyrdom comes down to his unbelievable commitment to the good and a thorough understanding of the cliché “ignorance is bliss.” The novella is a beautiful story of faith and doubt. Emmanuel’s hidden despair contains quite sinister undertones of the desolation and solitude of a world without religion, leaving his religious readers with a somewhat nauseating discomfort in the face of doubt and his irreligious readers with the pervasive loneliness of the material world. I don’t think it’s too presumptuous to say that science is propelling new generations in an increasingly atheist direction. It is undeniably a product of parents wanting to give their children the right to choose their own spiritual paths and attempting to avoid forcing kids into a religion the way society has functioned for a couple millennia. The problem with this ideal is that most children who clearly do not understand the
Talking Tech
yafeet negash
VOICES
Lessons from Literature
Cryptocurren$y
value of religion and faith will have very little natural interest in exploring and choosing a religion. An overwhelming majority of these kids will grow up to be atheists. One of the major problems linked to atheism relates to mental and spiritual health. We are undoubtedly a generation of lost, tired souls. There are countless articles about millennials having their midlife crises in their 20s, and a surprising number of young adults have a seemingly inappropriate world-weariness that should belong to the elderly. I believe that this is directly related to the atheism of our generation. As hard as atheists may argue for their contentment without religion, the truth is that they have nothing besides that which the human world can provide. Their world, in all its riches and beauty, is still undeniably one-dimensional. What a spiritual upbringing provides is the ability to comprehend and meditate upon abstract, universal principles. What spirituality entails, regardless of the name, the god(s), and the specific morality, is the necessity to see human life from some outside perspective, and the ability to relativize human existence to something greater than ourselves. Those without faith, however, are forced to relativize the universe and all that it contains to humans, which is an extremely fragile state of mind. If they ever venture away from human relativity, they quickly find that everything loses meaning. Thus we arrive at San Manuel’s existential crisis. It is the responsibility of caregivers to introduce children to spirituality. The church, faith, and religion do not necessarily matter; it is more a matter of opening the door to spirituality so that the individual can decide whether or not to walk through it later on in life. This issue carries a certain urgency about it, as the hinges to that door seem to ossify over time, until it becomes completely impossible to open, leaving the individual to wander the material world, utterly alone and insignificant in the silence of the godless cosmos.
B
y now, you have probably heard it mentioned at least a dozen times. You pretended that you understood what was being said. Even if you were not pretending, your understanding of bitcoin was nothing more than that it was just “internet money.” Bitcoin’s code has been in the wild since its mysterious mastermind, going by the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, open-sourced it in 2009. Opensource software is code that is publicly available for viewing and modification. The Microsoft Office suite, for instance, would not be considered open-source software because there is no way to see the code behind it. Whereas fiat currencies— those regulated by governments— depend on central banks for supply and valuation, and on banks for identity and balance verification, the bitcoin ecosystem sidesteps all of that through what is called the blockchain database. This distributed database is a record of all bitcoin transactions in history compiled into blocks. If this database was a book, the blocks would simply be the pages. Therefore, in theory, every bitcoin—there are 15.2 million of them as of February 2016—is traceable from its creation through all the transactions that it’s used in, and, theoretically, in perpetuity. If you have been reading closely, you will realize that we have not yet even defined what a bitcoin is. In truth, there is nothing that one can point at and say, “Hey, look! A bitcoin!” Not even some kind of a digital file. What exists is the ledger that contains the details of transactions among different addresses in the network. Those addresses, however, have balances associated with them that increase or decrease depending on the direction of the transaction. Every bitcoin address has an associated private key that is
B-12.00 -- Trim to 10.00Wx11.00D - CMYK - Georgetown
used to sign off on transactions. Without this key, the balance at that address is useless. When a transaction is takes place, it is announced to the whole bitcoin network, which is just a collection of all the computers running the bitcoin software. Here is where the “mathemagics” starts. Every 10 minutes or so, all outstanding transactions that have been announced have to be verified and grouped together into one block in a process called mining. Here, however, mining involves solving an extremely difficult mathematical problem. In essence, miners across the network are in a race to find the solution to this problem so that the transactions can be made into a block. But why would someone spend so much on expensive hardware and electricity bills to do that? Well, the first computer that solves the problem and adds the new transactions to the blockchain is rewarded with bitcoins. Twentyfive of them to be exact. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how bitcoins are made! But the reward will be halved to 12.5 bitcoins by June of this year, and then halved again four years later. That means it will be increasingly harder to mine bitcoins, until it becomes impossible once there are 21 million of them in circulation. It is expected that that limit will be reached sometime around 2140. Once that limit is reached, the miners will no longer be mining, but will, instead, be charging transaction fees to reward themselves for solving those hard problems. This arbitrary limit and its implications are the subject of much debate, and, frankly, too far out in the future to be of real substance to us. Instead, we want to know if Bitcoin has had any substantive impact on the way we perceive and use money, and whether it is a techno-fad whose end-days are just around the corner.
7
8
FEBRUARY 19, 2016
Taking Charge: GUWIL Builds a Professional Community on Campus By Michael Bergin
A
Members of the Georgetown community participate in GUWIL’s spring 2015 photo campaign.
GUWIL
lana Snyder (COL ‘16) walked into a high school classroom to find the word “BITCH” written in large letters on the whiteboard. Her initial shock was echoed by every student who walked in after her. “People kind of tricklewd in and asked themselves, ‘Why is this on the board?’ We thought this group was going to be kind of about starting a dialogue, not about using bad words,” said Snyder. “That whole conversation was about what does the word bitch mean when you’re using it in a casual setting or if someone’s using it aggressively; does tone really make a difference?” said Snyder. The issue then turned into a dialogue that stuck with Snyder, one that analyzed the use of the word in society. The talk was part of a program called “The Girl Effect,” which was based out of Snyder’s high school in her hometown of Los Angeles. The initiative was inspired by a larger campaign that shared the same name. Its principal goals were dialogue on gender in society, female leadership, and empowerment. Two years later, in the fall of 2012, Snyder entered Georgetown seeking a similar experience to the program she had found so beneficial. However, she was frustrated by a lack of accessible alternatives. “I got to Georgetown looking for something similar, and when I didn’t find that,” she continued, “I decided that it was up to me to make that happen.” This led to the creation of Georgetown University Women in Leadership (GUWIL). GUWIL began when Snyder met Ava Arroyo (SFS ‘16). The two discovered their mutual interest in a similar cause, and they began reaching out to friends. Within a few weeks, the organization had a dozen members, and continued to grow. As of the spring of 2016, GUWIL has a listserv of over 1,400 people. GUWIL’s website sums up their mission statement in three points: “Careers, Connections, and Community.” The first two points are typical of a business-oriented student organization at Georgetown, but the third point, community, is a much more important and complicated goal. Building a new home for students to confidently invest their commitment and energy has been challenging. “I think the broad scope of our club maybe makes it harder to have a membership that’s always a consistent membership,” said GUWIL President Lauren Casale (COL ‘17). With the club’s increasing membership have come questions within the organization concerning its diversity.
GUWIL Vice President Lauren Stricker (COL ‘18), who began her first term this semester along with Casale, said that even though their organization is highly inclusive and does not require an application, there still have been struggles in forming a diverse community. “Obviously that was never an intentional thing,” said Stricker. “GUWIL, like any club, will wind up finding its certain niche of people, and we’re always trying to be as reflective of the Georgetown campus itself as possible.” GUWIL is not alone in this tendency toward forming niche communities. Leslie Hinkson, an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Georgetown, explained that this is something inherent to student organizations on college campuses. “So some people think about this as the ‘Balkanization’ of college campuses,” said Hinkson. “We all have our little fiefdoms and we never come together and we never speak to each other.” There is, however, another view. Hinkson explained that others think of organizations as spaces for anyone to get together and speak about shared experiences, something that they might feel like they can’t do in spaces with others who don’t have this shared experience. Organizations naturally tend toward only fragments of the student body, and this makes inclusion of the entire campus community difficult. Stricker explained that inclusion has always been a priority for GUWIL. The group has taken steps to open their conversation to all Georgetown students by inviting others to co-sponsor events with the organization. Partnership with other organizations has been GUWIL’s primary means of reaching out to non-members who share similar interests. In her last weeks as president, Snyder participated in an inter-organizational diversity summit hosted by Georgetown University Aspiring Minority Business Leaders and Entrepreneurs (GAMBLE). Olivia Hewitt (MSB ‘16), Co-President of GAMBLE, said that Snyder reached out to her organization to begin participating in event planning together. Like GUWIL, GAMBLE is a fairly young organization on Georgetown’s campus, as it was founded in 2008. As a result of these discussions, GUWIL and GAMBLE now have a continuing partnership. In addition to plans to co-sponsor events in the future, the boards of both organizations continue to meet regularly. “No, we don’t have a point person for diversity,” said Casale. “We have different people who are working on different events with co-sponsors.” She explained that the organization integrates diversifying efforts into the group’s outreach
9
THE GEORGETOWN VOICE
Members of the GUWIL community host an internshjip panel in January 2015.
program, and she would like all board members to see this as an important matter. In the past, GUWIL has partnered with multiple organizations on campus, including the Irish American Society, Georgetown Retail Luxury Association, Asian American Student Association, and College Democrats. In one event, the Irish American Club and GUWIL joined forces to welcome Anne Anderson, the 17th Irish Ambassador to the United States, to Georgetown for a discussion about her experience as a female leader in politics. Going forward, Casale believes co-sponsorship is vital. She said that she values diffusion of the group’s shared messages over recruitment of new members. She sees this common ground initiative growing even larger with participation in GAMBLE’s Georgetown University Diversity Dialogue Conference 2016, which is occurring on Feb. 26, among other upcoming events that are being planned. Internally, GUWIL has put an emphasis on gender equality. Marketing committee member Kotryna Jukneviciute (COL ‘18) is tasked with handling social media for the organization. A large emphasis in her work is outreach to the men of Georgetown’s campus, seeking more “manbassadors” as GUWIL refers to it. These “manbassadors” can be seen around campus with GUWIL laptop stickers as part of the club’s larger marketing campaign. “We’re definitely trying to engage both genders in our conversations,” said Jukneviciute. “I think that’s very important, and to make it clear that although it is Georgetown University Women in Leadership, we are not necessarily exclusive to just women.” “The Girl Effect,” Alana Snyder’s original inspiration for GUWIL, featured an event called BYOB, Bring Your Own Boy. Snyder incorporated into her vision of the event into GUWIL. This event has been one of GUWIL’s most popular, with the most recent BYOB occurring on Feb. 2. “In a co-ed environment, you always want everyone to be participating in the discussion, so it’s important to feel like there are relevant topics that everyone can speak to,” said Snyder. The most recent discussion centered on the Sony Leaks, specifically gender and equal pay in Hollywood. Even though BYOB occurs only once a semester, men are welcome and encouraged to attend all other GUWIL meetings and events. Despite their proactive initiatives, two problems have plagued GUWIL since its recent creation: name recognition and public image. First, the group has struggled with making a name for themselves on Georgetown’s campus.
GUWIL
GUWIL hosts irish ambassador to the us anne anderson
Second, the club has received public scrutiny due to misconceptions of its work. “Especially in the club’s founding days, when it was a baby, people didn’t necessarily understand what we were aiming at with our programming,” said Snyder. “We’ve been criticized for anything and everything to be honest… things range across the spectrum from ‘Oh it’s just another sorority’ to ‘Oh this club is just catering to the one percent.’” The group began with Snyder and Arroyo reaching out to those closest to them on campus. Their message was clear: this is a club for women who want to excel in business. Beginning with a small, close-knit group and then reaching out into the Georgetown community created some natural difficulties related to exclusivity. Even today, new members expressed concern over how others may see the club at a glance. Marisa Colon (COL ‘19) is a freshman who recently became a member of GUWIL. “I do think that maybe some people perceive it as a ‘girls only’ type of club, and that they’re exclusive in that regard,” she said, despite BYOB and other events. “Our goal is just to get more people on campus aware of what GUWIL is,” said Casale. The organization is recently planning a new event called the Georgetown Women for Others Gala, set to take place on Apr. 7. The event, with a large portion of proceeds to be sent to a yet to be chosen charity, will honor female leaders on Georgetown’s campus. GUWIL intends to reach out to other student organizations on campus, including previous partners, asking for female nominees. “We’re hoping that that [the Gala] could be our trademark event on campus. we’re trying to get women from all different parts of Georgetown,” said Casale. “It’s a philanthropic event that we’re trying to do … Our goal is to get other groups aware on campus of what GUWIL is.” Snyder originally began developing this idea last semester along with the GUWIL events chair at the time, Meg DiMartino (COL ‘16). Currently, there is an entire committee within GUWIL devoted exclusively to the Gala. The architects of GUWIL are now seniors, preparing to leave Georgetown. A new generation now sits at the reins of the organization’s board, bringing with it a new set of ideas and directions. The group knows it has questions to answer. As it moves into this second phase of existence, GUWIL hopes to do just that. In the process, it aims to cement itself as a leading force of female empowerment on Georgetown’s campus in years to come.
GUWIL
“ In a co-ed environment, you always want everyone to be participating in the discussion, so it’s important to feel like there are relevant topics that everyone can speak to ” - Alana Snyder
FEBRUARY 19, 2016
10
IN
TROUBLE
Unlacing Georgetown’s Relationship with Nike By Caitlyn Cobb and Santul Nerkar
W
e’ve all seen the swoosh. From the t-shirts we wear at games to the jerseys our Hoyas don on the hardwood, Nike has a significant imprint on the brand of Georgetown University. Since the days of Patrick Ewing and the height of the Big East Conference in the early ‘80s, the University has maintained a partnership with the brand. In the last two decades especially, that relationship has come under fire both from within the Georgetown community and throughout the country, as knowledge of Nike’s labor abuses has spread. Universities, some of the largest consumers of Nike apparel, have aided in the formation of groups such as the United Students Against Sweatshop Labor (USAS) and the independent labor rights organization Workers’ Rights Consortium (WRC), ushering in a new age of transparency for the apparel industry. However, Nike’s recent decision to no longer allow the WRC access to its factories and its noncompliance with Georgetown’s Code of Conduct’s policy on living wages have raised some questions. A presentation on campus in November and a subsequent small protest by a group of athletes has sparked a renewed conversation on Nike’s labor violations. Why is Nike permitted to stay on as an official merchant of Georgetown apparel, let alone the exclusive apparel provider of Georgetown Athletics, if it does not align with the University’s core values? Could Nike’s special history with Georgetown play a role in its treatment? What is the future of Georgetown’s checkered history of student activism against labor rights abuses?
Basketball and the Georgetown Brand The “branding” of Georgetown can be traced back to the early 1980s, when the university joined the new Big East Conference. The men’s basketball team enjoyed unprecedented success throughout the decade, reaching the Final Four of
10
the NCAA Tournament three times and winning a national championship. Not surprisingly, Georgetown University’s national profile skyrocketed during this time period, as shown by a 45 percent increase in applications to the school during the three years that Patrick Ewing spent on the Hilltop. Georgetown and Nike also began their partnership in the early ‘80s. This relationship has grown stronger since, according to Dan O’Neil, Senior Associate Athletics Director for External Affairs. Nike has been the exclusive apparel provider of Georgetown Athletics, and provides “uniforms and performance items for all 29 of Georgetown’s intercollegiate athletics teams,” he wrote in an email to the Voice. Through its basketball program, Georgetown has formed deep ties with Nike. These go beyond mere cultural association, as evidenced by Former Head Coach John Thompson Jr.’s position on the Nike Board of Directors. Both Thompson Jr. and current Head Coach John Thompson III declined to comment for this story through a spokesman.
Student Activism for Labor Rights at Georgetown and the Question of Nike Sweatshops While Nike and Georgetown basketball go hand in hand, Nike’s history of labor violations serves as a rarely-examined subtext to the relationship. Professor John M. Kline of the School of Foreign Service, who sits on the board of the University’s Licensing Oversight Committee (LOC), believes that student engagement in these issues is the catalyst in achieving success. The collegiate apparel industry, he pointed out, has seen improvements in workers’ rights because its consumers are the most civically engaged.
“Unless there is student interest on the issues, things can go on for a long time without any kind of action,” Kline said. “The LOC exists because the students were engaged in that issue and considered it important. Student involvement is essential. It ebbs and flows. I don’t think the last few years have been as engaged as prior years. It seems to be picking up again, and I’m all for that.” Since Georgetown joined a growing national trend of student protest against sweatshops in the ‘90s, student engagement in issues of workers’ rights has helped shape the relationship between Nike and the school. “This whole sweatshop thing began in Duke University, and Georgetown was one of the second or third universities to have student protests against the administration, trying to get them to adopt a uniform code,” said Kline. “There was cooperation with other universities in doing this.” A wave of sit-ins was held at 100 campuses across the U.S. under the umbrella organization USAS in 1999, as was reported by The Guardian. “We will not allow our universities to profit from the sweat of inhumane conditions and the suffering of worker mistreatment,” USAS said. Twenty-seven Georgetown students held a sit-in for 85 hours in the office of President Leo J. O’Donovan, S.J. The Georgetown Solidarity Committee led the protest, demanding full disclosure of factory locations of companies producing Georgetown apparel. The agreement between the protesters and the Georgetown administration led to the establishment of Licensing Oversight Committee in fall 2000, and the creation of the Code of Conduct for Georgetown University Licensees. The establishment of new parameters in Georgetown’s relationships with its licensees, including Nike, was concurrent with the formation of a new national infrastructure for labor rights monitoring. “There was actually a White House group that was formed to try to address the sweatshop issue. Out of that came a group called the Fair Labor Association (FLA), and that is comprised
11
THE GEORGETOWN VOICE
of the brands and universities, no students,” said Kline. According to Kline, the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) was created in response as an alternative to the FLA, out of a concern that the FLA’s brand members would affect its neutrality. “Georgetown is one of the universities that is only a member of the WRC. There are universities that are members of both, so WRC was pretty much a student creation. And it’s just the students and universities; there are no corporate members in WRC,” explained Kline. “My understanding is that FLA is more integrated with Nike, such as in terms of funding and governance whereas the WRC is more independent,” Justice and Peace Studies Professor Eli McCarthy said. The most recent issues at hand in Nike’s relationship with Georgetown are Nike’s refusal to allow the WRC entrance to its factories in fall 2015 and its refusal to commit to a living wage for all its factory employees.
Code of Conduct Isabelle Teare (COL ‘17) is a member of Athletes and Advocates for Workers’ Rights, an organization that works to raise awareness about the treatment of workers in sweatshops. She questions whether the strength of Georgetown’s ties to Nike have influenced Georgetown’s decision to keep Nike its sole provider of apparel, despite its treatment of workers. “Every licensee of Georgetown, so everyone in the bookstore, is required to sign Georgetown’s Code of Conduct,” says Teare. “Nike is the only outside contractor that we do not require to sign our Code of Conduct … Why are we holding Nike to different standards than we hold the rest of the people who are making our university apparel?” In a letter received by the WRC on Oct. 29, 2015 and quoted in correspondence from the Consortium to its affiliated universities, Nike detailed its decision to block the WRC’s access to Hansae Vietnam, a factory that produces collegiate apparel for for the company. “Nike has a rigorous due diligence and criteria-assessment process to determine third party auditors, through which representatives of the FLA and Better Work have been approved to conduct audits of those contract factories manufacturing Nike product,” said the letter. “However, Nike does not permit other third parties to conduct such assessments.” Hansae Vietnam was the site of a worker-led strike in March 2015, where factory workers protested unsafe working conditions. Teare is concerned about the precedent this sets. “Nike has a problem right now because they aren’t allowing third party monitoring,” says Teare. “That’s an issue because if Nike, which is a massive leader in the industry, all of a sudden says ‘We don’t want to let people in,’ … [it could] start a ripple effect that’s moving backwards.”
The Role of the Licensing Oversight Committee “Georgetown established the LOC in 2000 to provide guidance to the University’s leadership regarding trademark
licensing p o l i c y. The LOC meets regularly and includes student, faculty, and staff representatives,” Cal Watson, Chair of the LOC and Director of Business Policy and Planning, explained in an email to the Voice. “The LOC has met several times to discuss the recent concerns that have been raised about Nike. Georgetown has been engaging with the WRC and Nike regarding these concerns. Those conversations are ongoing,” said Watson. Lillian Ryan (COL ‘18), an undergraduate member of the LOC and the student group Georgetown Solidarity Committee (GSC), said the LOC serves as a connection between worker’s rights and larger institutional goals. “[The LOC relates] worker’s justice to broader institutional goals, trying to hold the University accountable to its own standards of social justice.” The LOC has played a critical role in the direction of Georgetown’s relationship with other apparel licensees since its establishment. In 2009, under pressure from the GSC, the LOC decided not to renew Russell Athletic’s contract after an investigation into Russell’s labor practices. In 2012, the LOC recommended that Georgetown drop Adidas due to its violations of the Code of Conduct. This resulted from a combined pressure by the LOC and student groups like the GSC. “It was both the Licensing Committee and the Solidarity Committee who were involved in trying to pressure Adidas to work on their labor standards,” said Ryan. These examples of the LOC’s enforcement of the Code of Conduct demonstrate its role in maintaining accountability, but Kline points out that removing licensees due to violations is not the goal. “The effort is first made to try and solve the problem. So if the workers have not been paid, then you want them to be paid. You try to resolve that issue. If you cancel the contract, that doesn’t give the workers any money. So canceling the contract is a last step when you realize the brand isn’t going to be responsive,” he said.
A NIKE & GEORGETOWN TIMELINE Early 1980s 1985
Georgetown Licensing Program created. Nike is officially licensed to sell GU merchandise in the University Bookstore and other outlets
February 1999
85-hour sit-in at Georgetown held in GU President Leo J. O’Donovan’s, S.J., office
2000
Worker Rights Consortium, an independant labor rights monitoring organization is founded
2006
Nike becomes the exclusive apparel provider of Georgetown Athletics
2009
Georgetown cancels contract with Russell Athletic
2012
The LOC recommends Georgetown end its contract with Adidas due to violations of the Code of Conduct
It’s Not Just Nike Nike is hardly the only corporation to come under fire for its treatment of workers. “They all have labor abuses, and that’s where it gets really hard. You have to start somewhere,” said Teare. “We want to keep moving forward, not backward, and what Nike’s doing right now is trying to take a step backwards.” According to Kline, Nike has set a good example for others in the industry with its progress so far, but that example will be negated if it continues on its recent trajectory reversing away from transparency in the past year. “I have a lot of respect for Nike in some of the leadership positions it has taken,” says Kline. “It was the first one to disclose factory locations, after saying they never would. It
Georgetown and Nike begin relationship
October 2015
November 2015
B-12.00 -- Trim to 10.00Wx11.00D - CMYK - Georgetown
WRC receives a letter from Nike on Oct. 29 denying the group’s request for access to Hansae Vietnam, a factory producing GU apparel Students tape over Nike logo on University-provided equipment
11
FEBRUARY 19, 2016
has taken steps in several of the cases involving Georgetown … to provide money to compensate workers who hadn’t been paid by the factories that closed … So they have pretty good standards; they do a good job.” But without the system of checking and monitoring the company’s practices that came about in the 1990s, advocates worry that their progress will halt. McCarthy believes that Nike’s position of leadership within the apparel industry makes its labor practices especially important. “Nike continues to fail to pay workers enough to meet their basic needs such as both food and school for kids. Nike also continues to harm workers and communities with the large toxic piles of scrap shoe rubber. The formation of unions also remains difficult in some areas,” wrote McCarthy in an email to the Voice. “Nike has by far the largest market share of this industry. This is why it is so important to address their abuses not only for their workers but also for industry standards that impact thousands of other workers.”
Alta Gracia
ES
HIV
S: OTO
PH
12
C VOI
RC EA
Kline believes that while protests against Nike’s practices are necessary, a movement also needs to include uplifting ethical apparel companies. He cited Alta Gracia, an apparel company that provides a living wage to its workers, as an example of a company more worthy of support. Kline conducts research on Alta Gracia though the Reflective Engagement Initiative. According to an Employee Wage Cost Comparison included in a Research Progress Report on the company by Kline and MSB Professor Edward Soule, an adjusted living wage rate for Alta Gracia employees was over 350 percent higher than the minimum monthly wage in the fair trade zone (FTZ) in the Dominican Republic in November 2011. The cost of maintaining this living wage within the context of an mega-industry fueled by cheap labor is a serious disadvantage, meaning that Alta Gracia’s success depends on the support of its collegiate customers, the report said. “I think that Alta Gracia is the best thing that has happened to the collegiate apparel sector since they adopted clothes in the monitoring process,” said Kline. “With a little bit more money, not that much more money, we could be supporting Alta Gracia. We could be working with other student groups at other universities to support it.” Kline and McCarthy see both protesting violations and supporting companies like Alta Gracia as ways for students to drive an examination of Georgetown’s relationship with Nike. According to Kline, though, movements of support are sometimes undervalued components of student engagement with labor rights. “What I’ve noted is that it’s frankly easier to get the students interested and motivated when there’s something you can protest about,” wrote Kline. “I think what’s important is using complementary methods to try to reach a goal,” Ryan agreed, speaking both as a member of GSC and as an LOC member. “Ultimately though, the students must discern, ideally with the workers, the greater good and the strategy to get there,” McCarthy said.
The Power of the Student Athlete In his presentation at Georgetown, “Behind the Swoosh: Sweatshops and Social Justice” on Nov. 9, 2015, Keady argued that the student athletes are being used by both the Nike and the Georgetown brands. Keady believes that Nike uses Georgetown’s and other Catholic universities’ values as means to validate the Nike brand. “Georgetown was used, and the administration and elected parties used the student athletes and continue to do so. They have turned [student athletes] into walking billboards for a company that violates everything this Catholic Jesuit institution stands for,” Keady said. A few student athletes taped-over the Nike swoosh on their athletic apparel following the presentation. According to McCarthy, the response to this single event demonstrates the power that student athletes have in the overall dialogue. “When student-athletes simply covered their swooshes, some coaches and others pushed back. This is an indication of the potential power student action could have. I think student actions could play an even bigger, more transformative role in ensuring more just agreements for workers,” wrote McCarthy. The power of student and athlete action to bring awareness to an issue was demonstrated in December 2014 when the Hoyas Men’s Basketball Team all donned “I Can’t Breathe” shirts, to protest police brutality in the death of Eric Garner. Thompson Jr. bluntly offered his views on the subject of athlete and student engagement into these matters in a press conference after the game, saying “It’s a f---ing school, man. That’s your responsibility, to deal with things like that.” Almost immediately after the game, the conversation switched from the 75-70 setback the team suffered to Kansas to the national message they conveyed by simply wearing a t-shirt. This offers a model for future activism that McCarthy envisions. According to McCarthy, taking action for labor rights is a basic imperative of Georgetown’s values. “We should support our students in exploring how to transform such injustices and not get stuck ignoring them [or] downplaying them,” McCarthy wrote. “This is basic Catholic social teaching of human dignity, human rights, and the faith that does justice.” Students and universities all have uniquely strong positions for ensuring workers’ rights. “Universities have the power because they choose to consume the goods and make a contract, so they can always withdraw this consumption. Thus, this power allows them to put pressure on Nike to ensure access to a particular monitoring agency. The stronger they make the contract the more they can ensure their impact, such as choosing the monitoring agency,” said McCarthy. Kline believes that it will take a continued effort to see more positive improvements. “Georgetown has played a leadership role in this whole issue for quite awhile. I’m hopeful it’ll continue to do so. But it will do so if it knows students are interested in it. That’s a necessary condition to keep interest for a lot of the rest of the University.” “Right now, we’ve made some recommendations to the administration in terms of the Nike initiative. I’m very hopeful that the University will continue its past policies, that it will bring the agreement with Nike up to date, and everything will be good,” said Kline. “Ultimately though,” said McCarthy, “the students must discern, ideally with the workers, the greater good and the strategy to get there.”
13
THE GEORGETOWN VOICE
Service beyond
the hilltop The CSJ Turns 15
By Thomas Stubna
The Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching, and Service will celebrate its 15th anniversary during the upcoming Social Justice Week, held from February 20 to 26. Established the same weekend President DeGioia was inaugurated, the CSJ continues to expand in its ability to support meaningful community service. Founding Director Kathleen Maas-Weigert credits visionary faculty for pushing to establish the CSJ. “It was a dream, a vision, of key faculty who knew this was an important step and of an administration that recognized they were right and put some money behind it,” she said referring specifically to the late James Slevin of the English Department, among others. “You couldn’t have a place like this, if it weren’t for key students who cared about it, key faculty, key staff, and good relationships with the community at large.” Lauren Johannesson-McCoy (COL ‘04, MBA ‘14), the CSJ’s Financial and Administrative Officer, helped interview candidates for the position of Founding Director when she was an undergraduate student involved with DC Reads and other programs that pre-dated the CSJ. “The idea was, there is this social justice research going on at the University. There’s social justice pedagogy and curriculum going on in the classrooms,” she said. “Why don’t we have a home for all of this to happen together that wouldn’t just be extracurricular but could be co-curricular, curricular, and would have a place in one office? And so the Center for Social Justice was what that became.” McCoy observed that the CSJ’s incorporation has allowed it to serve its programs more efficiently. “I did DC Reads when I was a freshman, and there weren’t enough vans to get us out, so we took the Metro bus across the city,” she said. “Now we’ve been able to grow and have 21 vans to get students out.” Another program that has seen tremendous growth is the Alternative Breaks Program (ABP). Now in its 41st year of operation, ABP has expanded from 9 trips and approximately 100 students in 2004 to 32 trips and about 370 students today, according to CSJ Associate Director Ray Shiu. Several ABP trips now have an additional focus on advocacy beyond simply serving the community. “One particular [program] we piloted when I was there was a worker justice program, which was pivotal in giving students more than the
direct service opportunity but [also] the opportunity to learn about issues and advocacy and political change,” Maas-Weigert said. “We try to see the CSJ as a vehicle for a wide range of activities and education opportunities, relationships that would in fact keep moving social justice forward both internal to the University and external with our partners both in D.C. and beyond.” Though Georgetown has previously demonstrated a continued commitment to community service and engagement, the programs had not been previously integrated in one place. In fact, it was not until 1974 that the Office of Volunteering and Public Service (VPS), under Student Affairs, was established in the basement of Saint Mary’s Hall. Some programs, such as the DC Schools Project (DCSP), were based instead in the Center for Intercultural Education and Development, which together with VPS became integrated into the CSJ. “The entrance to VPS was by a bunch of dumpsters in the basement of Saint Mary’s,” said McCoy. “[At Poulton Hall] we were getting everything under one roof, a much nicer roof.” CSJ Executive Director Dr. Andria Wisler believes the colocation of the research, teaching, and service programs is beneficial to their continued success. “All the social justice issues in which we work intersect,” she said. “Juvenile justice intersects with literacy, which intersects with homelessness, and so to be able to bring those together actually provides a more comprehensive picture to what are some of the major challenges in our city and beyond.” The DCSP is an example of how the CSJ evolves to help where the need is greatest, according to Wisler. “It’s the Jesuit way of the world to respond to the needs of the day,” she said. “So that means that we try to be as immersed in what are the social justice challenges, what are the injustices in our world to make sure our programs are responding to them.” This has involved DCSP switching schools to focus on those with highest need, always a difficult decision for Wisler. “When we really try to hold true to our mission of serving the most
Photo courtesy of CSJ
underserved, we always have to think about where the need is.” Students with Federal Work-Study can apply their awards to community service; as a result, the CSJ has grown to become the second-largest employer of students on campus with about 300 Work-Study students and many more volunteers. While the CSJ heavily involves many Georgetown students in community service and outreach, it also recognizes 15 faculty fellows who support social justice and community-based research and has several research assistant students for its own projects. The CSJ also provides administrative support for the Justice and Peace Studies (JUPS) Program, and several of its members are Georgetown faculty. For example, Director of Research Dr. Diana Guelespe is researching the impact on undocumented immigrants of applying for the new Limited Purpose driver’s license in D.C. “We often talk about our work as having a hundred open doors and windows,” said Wisler. “We don’t own social justice at Georgetown. It’s everybody’s mission, and it’s everybody’s responsibility.” Wisler is excited to continue supporting the desire of our community to advance the common good. “We’re really here to support whatever unit that is on campus or whatever student or faculty member to really get them engaged in what we think is such important work that then sets people up for a lifelong civic engagement wherever they live in the world.”
B-12.00 -- Trim to 10.00Wx11.00D - CMYK - Georgetown
3
FEBRUARY 19, 2016
LEISURE
14
Hunches and Hopes: Voice predicts the Oscars Best Director: Who will win: Alejandro G. Iñárritu, The Revenant Who should win: George Miller, Mad Max: Fury Road Iñárritu’s been sweeping. He took the Golden Globe, the Directors’ Guild, the BAFTAs, and a host of other minor awards— it doesn’t look like anything can stop him. This would be unfortunate; even beyond the dullness of re-rewarding a recent winner (in consecutive years!), Iñárritu’s work here lacks a lot of the subtlety and care that are obvious in his competitors’ works, and it gives weight to the old jab that for the Academy, “Best Direction” really just means “Most Direction.” In the end, it doesn’t matter that he just won last year, nor that The Revenant may not end up winning Best Picture, Iñárritu has simply nailed down what it is the Academy looks for in a director—for better or for worse. But consider another candidate: George Miller. He’s been around forever tinkering with a host of odd projects (this is the guy behind Babe and Happy Feet) and he still finds time to put together another Mad Max movie and make it seem fresh and new thirty-five years after the first one. He manages to pull a film that is compelling narratively and visually—out of two hours of car chases. The other nominees just can’t match up; McKay, McCarthy, and Abrahamson are certainly admirable, but their movies are predominantly driven by actor and script and aren’t great directorial showcases. Iñárritu, on the other hand, tries far too hard to make every scene into its own showcase and ends up desperately overcooking his own film, drowning it in flourish. Miller’s been putting on this kind of spectacle for a long time, and the experience shows itself in Fury Road. By Andrew Gutman
Supporting Actress: Who will win: Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl Who should win: Vikander As of now, the Supporting Actress Oscar race is an apparent dead heat between Academy Award winner Kate Winslet (winner of Best Actress in 2008 for her work in The Reader) and newcomer Alicia Vikander. The debut of Steve Jobs in October 2015 was met with acclaim, with critics praising both Winslet’s performance and that of Michael Fassbender as the titular tech giant. Yet, perhaps due to an already crowded race, pundits doubted the Academy would recognize the actress for her superb turn as Joanna Hoffman, the Polish-Armenian marketing executive of Apple who serves as Jobs’ moral compass. Fast forward four months, and Winslet has scooped up a Golden Globe and a BAFTA, generating buzz for what could have been an overlooked performance and positioning herself well for another Oscar. For her part, Swedish actress Alicia Vikander has won raves for her role as the compassionate wife of the first recipient of gender confirmation surgery in The Danish Girl, earning a SAG award and a Critics Choice award, both considered strong predictors of Oscar victory. Stealing the spotlight from Eddie Redmayne’s showier portrayal of Lili Elbe was no easy feat, but Vikander pulled it off as the painter Gerda Wegener. Vikander was in two other films this year—she played the hauntingly beautiful AI Ava in Ex Machina and appeared in The Man From Uncle. Keeping in mind the Academy’s perennial fascination with the freshfaced, talented newcomer and considering her breakout year, I’m placing my bets on a Vikander victory on Feb. 28. By Amy Guay
Supporting Actor: Who will win: Sylvester Stallone, Creed Who should win: Stallone The award for Best Supporting Actor is, just like many other categories at this year’s Oscars, without a frontrunner. Sylvester Stallone, nominated for his role as Rocky Balboa in the Rocky spin-off Creed is thought by most to have a slight edge on his competition, most prominently Tom Hardy, nominated for his role in The Revenant. After Creed star Michael B. Jordan and director Ryan Coogler were both snubbed, one would assume that awarding Stallone the award would serve as some sort of a make-up call, even though Stallone was the only major white member of the movie. Hardy and Mark Ruffalo, nominated for his role in Spotlight, both have shots at the award while Christian Bale (The Big Short) and Mark Rylance (Bridge of Spies) are on the outside looking in. But Stallone looks to be the slight favorite, and he should be. Creed managed to revitalize a franchise that had been dead for 30 years (and two films), and Stallone, who played a Balboa who was at once more articulate and more vulnerable than his previous six iterations, was a large part of its success. Of course, the rest of the credit goes to Jordan and Coogler, but as of now, the only way for the Academy to validate Creed is through this category. It seems hard to believe that they wouldn’t do so. By Chris Almeida
14
15
THE GEORGETOWN VOICE
Best Actor: Who will win: Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant Who should win: DiCaprio After striking out three times in this category, everything seems to be shaping up for DiCaprio this year. While his performance was intermittently transcendent, one can also point to the rest of the field as underwhelming, or at the very least straightforward. Bryan Cranston (Trumbo) gives a memorable performance, but not one that was ever going to upend a superstar on an Oscar warpath. The same can be said for Michael Fassbender (Steve Jobs), who may have gained more momentum this awards season had his film itself garnered wider acclaim. Matt Damon (The Martian) may or may not deserve to be here, though of course his likability is so near a consensus that no one seems to object. If there is another nominee with a strong claim to the “Should Win” title, it’s Eddie Redmayne (The Danish Girl). His performance was incredibly moving, but he also won in this category last year (for The Theory of Everything), and it is hard to imagine the Academy rewarding him again when they have an eager, well-respected DiCaprio waiting with open arms. In my mind, The Revenant is flawed enough to perhaps not deserve Best Picture, but DiCaprio’s physical immersion into the role of Hugh Glass was more than enough to end his well-publicized Oscar drought. Some have pointed to the film and his work as purely awards bait, as ostentatious for the sake of winning shiny trophies, but the performance remains worthy regardless of its ambitions or intentions. By Brian McMahon
Best Actress: Who will win: Brie Larson, Room Who should win: Saoirse Ronan, Brooklyn At the moment, Brie Larson seems to have everything except an actual Oscar. A relative newcomer to the awards scene, this is Larson’s first Academy Award nomination. After a clean sweep at the SAG Awards, the Golden Globes, and the BAFTAs, it seems likely that Larson will continue her winning streak at the Academy Awards for her performance in Room. The film, released in the U.S. on October 16th, has received a positive critical reception and is on the fringe of contention for Best Picture as well. Larson won praise for her performance as a mother and emotionally-traumatized kidnap victim. On the other hand, Saoirse Ronan has been celebrated by critics for her role in Brooklyn. After receiving her first nomination at age 13 for Atonement, Ronan’s second nomination makes her, at age 21, one of the youngest actresses to receive two Academy Award nominations. Ronan gives a captivating, award-worthy performance as Irish immigrant Eilis in Brooklyn. However, after being nominated but failing to win at the SAG Awards, the Golden Globes, and the BAFTAs (all strong Oscar predictors), it seems unlikely that Ronan will come through as an underdog.
IMD
Best Picture: Who will win: The Big Short Who should win: Mad Max: Fury Road
B
By Caitlin Mannering
The Oscar race this year has been all over the place, and for the first time in a long time, there’s a respectable spread of films—The Big Short, Spotlight, The Revenant, even Mad Max—that could take home the gold. The Big Short wins out, though, with its victory at the Producers’ Guild Awards, historically one of the best predictors of Best Picture and as concrete an indicator as we have right now. For all the talk about The Revenant’s march to glory, it doesn’t have that ever-crucial Guild support, and it seems unlikely that the Academy would be eager to reward an Iñárritu-directed film with Best Picture two years in a row, following Birdman’s win last year. As unlikely as an Adam McKay film winning Best Picture sounds on paper, it’s clearly resonating with industry figures enough to go the distance. I couldn’t complain much about a Big Short win, and the same goes for Spotlight. That said, few films this year were as impressive as Mad Max: Fury Road, and the idea of an inventive and engrossing blockbuster being awarded with the big prize on Oscar night is very attractive, and could do wonders for a film industry in danger of stagnating. The Oscars are constantly being accused of being both too snooty and too dumbed-down, so why not reward the one film this year that managed to captivate highbrow critics and megaplex audiences alike? It would be a dream compared to the pandering, pseudo-profound stylings of The Revenant. By Andrew Gutman
B-12.00 -- Trim to 10.00Wx11.00D - CMYK - Georgetown
15
Become A
News Writer For the Georgetown Voice
For more information:
News@georgetownvoice.com PB