The Georgetown Voice, September 16, 2016

VOICE The Georgetown

September 16, 2016

SEPTEMBER 16, 2016

2

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

editor-in-chief Kevin Huggard Managing editor Graham piro

Volume 49 • Issue 2

VOICE The Georgetown

staff

September 16, 2016

news

executive editor Ryan miller Features editor Caitlyn cobb news editor lilah burke assitant news editors margaret gach, cassidy jensen, isaiah seibert

culture

executive editor Brian Mcmahon Leisure editor michael bergin assistant leisure editors Amy guay, tatiana lebreton, caitlin mannering Sports editors robert ponce Assistant sports editors Tyler pearre, phillip steuber

opinion

Executive editor kenneth lee voices editor Lara Fishbane Editorial Board Chair Daniel Varghese Editorial Board Jon Block, Kevin Huggard, kenneth lee, graham piro, ryan miller

“high” by patricia lin

contents

Editorials

Carrying On: Getting Comfortable With the Discomfort of Diversity Kenneth Lee A Question of Accessability and Byte the Bullet Adam Shlomi and Rebecca Zaritsky Reckless Rhetoric: Why Georgetown’s Apology Isn’t “Reparations” Isaiah Fleming-Klink High on the Hill: D.C.’s Uncovered Cannabis Industry Mike Bergin

4 5 6 7 8

Federal Ruling Sparks TA Unionization Discussions Across Campus.

Caitlyn Cobb

11

Rise of Keegan Rosenberry: Former Hoya Climbs MLS Ranks Jon Block and Robbie Ponce

12

Hanks Soars in Sully’s Gripping Story Carlos Miranda

14 15

Bastille Returns with Confidence and LVL UP Is Lost in the Noise Jon Block and Anna Shuster

editor@georgetownvoice.com Leavey 424 Box 571066 Georgetown University Washington, DC 20057

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. All materials copyright The Georgeton Voice, unless otherwise indicated.

halftime

Leisure editor Danielle hewitt assistant leisure editors Dan sheehan, claire smith Sports editors Jonny Amon, Chris Dunn

design

Executive editor Emma Francois Photo editor sarah jane kim cover editor patricia lin Spread editor Alli Kaufman assistant design editors Megan Howell, Lindsay Reilly, Abbey Roberts Staff Designers Samantha Lee, cate o’Leary

copy

copy chief Anna Gloor editors Clara Cecil, Claire Goldberg, Michelle Kelly, Isabel Lord, Bethania Michael, Hanh Nguyen, Kate Phillips, Gabriella Wan

online

podcast editor Jon block

business

general manager Naiara parker senior associate, finance and alumni outreach Jessica ho

3

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

Georgetown’s History with Slavery: READ OUR COVERAGE ON GEORGETOWNVOICE.COM The year in review:

By Voice Staff The University reopened the Former Jesuit Residence as a student dormitory along with what was then known as Mulledy Hall, named after former University President Fr. Thomas F. Mulledy, S.J., who authorized the sale of the 272 slaves owned by the Jesuits in Maryland.

Protesting students sat in front of DeGioia’s office all day demanding a name change to Mulledy and McSherry Halls, as well as other initiatives to acknowledge and reconcile Georgetown’s history with slavery. Protesters met with DeGioia in the morning and received support from professors.

August 2015

The University announced the Freedom and Remembrance Grant Program during a teach-in in Gaston to fund projects to deepen understanding around the University’s role in slavery.

Nov. 13, 2015

The working group publicly released a report recommending giving preferential admissions status to descendants of the University’s slaves as well as creating an institute for the study of slavery, issuing a formal apology for Georgetown’s participation in slavery, and renaming Freedom and Remembrance Halls to Isaac Hall and Anne Marie Becraft Halls.

Sept. 1, 2016

Dec. 1, 2015

September 2015

Nov. 14, 2015

April 12-21, 2016

University President John DeGioia created the Working Group on Slavery, Memory, and Reconciliation to provide advice and recommendations on acknowledging the historical relationship with slavery.

DeGioia announced he would change the names of Mulledy and McSherry Halls immediately to Freedom and Remembrance Halls, respectively, until final names were chosen.

The University hosted an Emancipation Day symposium, which commemorated the D.C. Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862, and addressed Georgetown’s relationship with slavery from an academic approach.

EDITORIALS

4

SEPTEMBER 16, 2016

Georgetown’s Reconciliation Attempt Falls Slightly Short

Last Thursday, Georgetown University announced the findings of its working group on Slavery, Memory, and Reconciliation. The group’s recommendations include renaming Freedom Hall and Remembrance Hall, offering an apology, engaging with the descendant community, developing a public memorial, and establishing a new Institute for the Study of Slavery and Its Legacies at Georgetown. The University has agreed to pursue all of these recommendations.

Furthermore, the University has announced that they will offer descendants of enslaved people from whom Georgetown benefited the same consideration as members of the Georgetown community in the admissions process.

This Editorial Board believes these moves are a good first step toward reconciliation for Georgetown’s historical connection to slavery. But they ultimately do not do enough to benefit the descendants of enslaved people who worked for the Jesuits.

Georgetown would not exist as it does today without slavery. Its oldest buildings were built with slave labor. Its first students brought slaves with them to campus. Its debts were paid by the selling of slaves. The monetary benefit that slavery conferred on Georgetown is incalculably large. As Fr. David Collins wrote in his The New York Times op-ed, “slavery is our history, and we are its heirs.”

Many have made note of the recommendation for preferential admissions. In reality, this policy stands to benefit only a small number of descendants. Many are past college-age, and it would be presumptuous to think that those who are not would all want to or be positioned to attend Georgetown. The University’s plans for reconciliation do little to help these people.

That being said, the rhetorical aim of this move, which treats the descendants of slaves who built our University like legacy students and full members of the Georgetown community, is not lost on us. It should be highlighted, however, that this move has limited practical impact. As it stands, about 80 to 90 percent of legacy students would have been accepted to Georgetown regardless of their legacy status.

This is why we believe that only giving these students a slight advantage in the admissions process does not provide a financial benefit even close to equivalent of the costs borne on the backs of the enslaved people who worked for Georgetown.

“Tobacco plants”

At the very least, offering full scholarships to the students who qualify for these preferential admissions seems necessary to ensure they do not leave Georgetown with the student loans sometimes included as part of financial aid packages and to meet the University’s stated desire of a “meaningful financial commitment” to the descendants.

Offering payment to other descendants who do not qualify for admission to Georgetown should also be strongly considered, as it would appear more in line with the working group’s call for a “meaningful financial commitment.”

Granted, we recognize that the financial benefits we received from enslaved people’s labor are far too great for Georgetown to pay back directly. We are also unsure whether descendants of those slaves who worked at Georgetown would want a direct payment.

One descendant, Melisande Colombe, described her vision of reconciliation to The Washington Post. “Money—no. I can’t be compensated financially for that,” she said. “But as Americans, are we not obligated to open up a dialogue to truth and reconciliation? For ourselves—for our children—for future generations. We can’t keep telling the same lies.”

Indeed, the recommendations neglected to include what descendants want, something that has made Georgetown vulnerable to criticism regarding its efforts thus far. But we are encouraged by the University’s expressed desire to actively reach out to descendants and invite them to join in its efforts. It is dangerous to presume that the university knows best for those affected by its harmful actions, and the university should work with descendants to determine what the best course of action should be, especially concerning the possibility for reparations.

One idea, proposed by a group of descendants, is for Georgetown to establish a $1 billion charitable foundation to continue the work of reconciliation. A spokesman for the group, Joseph Stewart, told the Post that “Our vision is not about reparations. It’s not about getting anything that just benefits descendants. It’s about having an opportunity to have a common good.”

Georgetown’s commitment to work with descendants must be more than just talk. To this end, the University should establish a strict timeline for future plans on reconciliation and faithfully abide by them.

Several descendants have already shown a desire to be an active part of the process of reconciliation. Karran Harper Royal told the Post, “You can’t have a healing and a reconciliation without mutual respect and collaboration. We are ready to do that,” she said.

Slavery was a national sin, and Georgetown does not have the capacity to address it in its entirety. As the report of the working group makes clear, Georgetown’s “origins and growth, successes and failures, can be linked to America’s slave-holding economy and culture.” The University’s reconciliation efforts should be linked to a wider cultural movement within American higher education. In the past, other schools such as Harvard, Brown, and the University of North Carolina have published histories or erected memorials about their ties to slavery, but none has gone so far to offer an official apology as Georgetown has agreed to do. As one of the first universities, and indeed one of the first institutions, in the United States to do so Georgetown is in a unique position to lead a response to this history among its peers.

We are encouraged by Georgetown’s membership in Universities Studying Slavery, a working group consisting of scholars representing twenty universities in and around Northern Virginia, and by potential collaboration between universities on this shared history. We envision a collective scholarship program that allows any descendants of the enslaved people connected to any of the universities within the consortium to receive full scholarships to any of the schools within the consortium that offers them admission.

We acknowledge that a program like this still does not absolve Georgetown and any partner institution of their dark history with slaves. Yet we believe that these larger programs get us much closer than simply offering preferential admissions.

Georgetown has taken an important step, but the work is far from finished. While the University has devoted significant resources toward this effort, more is needed. In addition to the programs outlined so far, progress will require a readiness to. extend the financial benefits of reconciliation to the descendants of Georgetown’s slaves beyond the small percentage of that group that may study here. With an evil as enormous and long-running as slavery, the project of reconciliation must also be both massive and continuous if anything like justice is ever to be approached.

Sam lee

5

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

Getting Comfortable with the Discomfort of Diversity Tabling for three hours for the undergraduate Japanese club at the student activities fair a few weekends ago made me realize why diversity education is so important to the studies of a Georgetown undergraduate.

“Oh, it’s just another cultural club,” remarked one student before she walked away, perhaps in search of a written application that she wished to masochistically fill out. “How Japanese is Japan Network? Like, are there any Japanese people in J-NET?” another asked with the most puzzled look.

Of course, no group at Georgetown should define itself by ethnic homogeneity and cultural purity, intentionally or not. Nonetheless, after abruptly transplanting your life thousands of miles away from home, for an international student, it is refreshing to gravitate toward a group who can speak Cantonese and appreciate roasted pork belly in a place of pumpkin spice lattes, graduation rings, and semi-underground fraternities. During my freshman year, I became an active ambassador for my own culture, hanging scrolls outside my door to celebrate Chinese New Year and making my Darnall floormates eat mooncakes. I still remember quite fondly how one of them spat out the salty egg yolk in disgust.

Is it possible to become too aggressive at cultural ambassadorship? Two years ago, I made fun of Leo’s for writing “Got a yen for great food?” in their marketing campaign for Chinese New Year on Facebook. In an emotional and perhaps inebriated conversations with friends, I have lamented the one too many times strangers and acquaintances have expressed puzzlement at the accent, or lack thereof, that accompanies my English speech.

I am beginning to wonder if these moments of hypersensitive frustration impede interpersonal connections. Take, for example, the seemingly innocuous question of “Where are you from?” That question threatens to unilaterally place people in distinct categories in which they do not fit. In today’s political environment, some might interpret my previous sentence as a manifestation of political correctness—anyone who asks that question deserves to be attacked, so it is better not to ask it at all—and thus a limit on free speech. After all, no one wants to be called a racist. But this fear of being attacked prevents us from intellectually engaging with our differences beyond a cursory. A person who would have considered how some people find multiple, overlapping identities from, for example, the lottery of birth or the privilege of education would ask a better question like, “What’s your story?”

On the other side of the spectrum, I also wonder whether it is possible to explore too deeply a culture that I do not originally belong in. During my semester abroad in Tokyo, many times when I met someone, he or she couldn’t stop talking about how much more ‘local’ my Japanese was than they might have expected, meaning I didn’t sound like a language textbook. It was as if the

maximum potential that all Japanese language learners could muster was supposed to be “konnichiwa” (hello) and “arigatou” (thank you), and no more.

The more cultural sensitivity I tried to acquire in Tokyo, the further I threatened the neatly defined identities and stereotypes that mainstream Japanese society has reserved for foreigners. Consequently, I confused anybody who tried to objectify me as a foreigner. I could speak English and lived in America, but I was neither white nor American; I was not Japanese, but I spoke more Japanese than the average exchange student. I told people I was Chinese but I hardly spoke in Mandarin nor did I live in mainland China.

On the last day of my part-time job at the convenience store in Tokyo, the customer in front of me, noticing my lack of Japanese ethnicity, turned to my Japanese colleague to remark about my Japanese accent. He then faced me to ask, in English, the question that fascinates so many: “Where are you from?”

Two weeks ago, the descendants of the 272 slaves sold for Georgetown’s financial benefit stood in Gaston Hall, responding to the university’s offer to apologize and reconcile for its historical sins. I gave up on joining the long line to enter the press event and resigned myself to worrying about my precarious postgraduate life on my laptop in the Healey Family Student Center. But a staff member decided to put a livestream of the press event on the big screen, and a small crowd, including myself, found itself gravitating towards it, silently reflecting on the unforgettable, perhaps unforgivable, crime that our school once committed based on difference.

It is always painful to confront the injustices stemming from difference. That pain lies not only in the heated news headlines when students rally for Aramark workers at Leo’s or for #gu272, but also in the most sacred, intimate details of our own lives: whether I’m jeopardizing my relationships with family and friends when I come out to them as bisexual, or whether I’m getting through another session of CAB Fair for Japan Network without someone questioning the integrity of my membership in the club of which I love to be a part.

This challenge of difference will be the defining question of our lifetime. Not necessarily because the answers have gotten easier, but because it is getting harder not to ask those uncomfortable questions. I know that once I succumb to the responsibilities of adulthood after I graduate, I realistically will have less freedom to let these questions shape me into a better person. I hope to treasure my time at Georgetown that I spent letting the challenge of difference educate me, and I hope you do too.

Kenneth Lee He is a Senior in the SFS. by

AICHA NZIE

Carrying On: Voice Staffers Speak

SEPTEMBER 16, 2016

6

VOICES

The Case for Trigger Warnings This article contains a trigger warning for trigger warnings.

Okay, that’s facetious. There has been a lot of backlash against trigger warnings lately, especially at universities.

Recently, the University of Chicago put out a letter saying that it did not support “so called ‘trigger warnings’” because of the university’s “commitment to academic freedom.”

Now, academic freedom is a wonderful thing, as is freedom of speech in general. As a daughter of immigrants who grew up in the USSR, I like to think that I understand the importance of open conversation better than many.

Discourse is unquestionably vital to society. Sharing ideas illuminates points we hadn’t thought to consider, and may even change our minds.

We should not shy away from uncomfortable topics.

Rather, it is important to consider the reasons why these topics are uncomfortable and ways to make them less so—for example, sexual assault is endemic across college campuses in the United States, and that’s not something people particularly enjoy discussing. It upsets us to think that it might happen to someone we love, or that a person that we trust could be capable of perpetrating such a despicable act.

This discomfort is natural, but it inspires us to work to solve the problem of campus sexual assault, a necessary action.

However, there are some people who should not be made to engage in those conversations. People who have experienced sexual trauma in the past are likely to find the conversations not just uncomfortable, but deeply upsetting, and they may “trigger” (hence the name ‘trigger warning’) an episode of their mental illness. A setback at a critical point in therapy can be devastating for a trauma survivor,

and can cause untold damage (and may potentially have irreversible consequences, up to and including suicide, such as in the case of Lindsay Armstrong, a 16-year-old who committed suicide after being retraumatized during her trial).

Of course, this doesn’t just apply to issues of sexual violence. Trigger warnings are often used for discussions of suicide, self-harming, eating disorders, violence, abuse, and many more. The type and frequency of trigger warnings used depends largely on the situation; while it would be odd to use a trigger warning for clothes shopping in general conversation, they are commonly requested and used in spaces for people with eating disorders, as discussion about clothes shopping can trigger negative body image and (dangerous) disordered behavior.

So what about college campuses, then? Should we use them at Georgetown?

Here’s how I think of it: it is nothing less than the responsibility of the University to provide adequate and appropriate trigger warnings for students. Students cannot and should not be required to sit quietly and listen to a conversation, however well-intentioned it may be, that triggers episodes of mental illness or traumatic memories, especially if they’re not forewarned. Refusing to provide trigger warnings in situations where they are clearly relevant causes direct and needless harm. Nobody would expect a student to sit quietly and endure being physically harmed, so why would we expect that of a student if it concerns the mind rather than the body?

Of course, situations exist where students cannot be exempt from a conversation—for example, a mentally ill

psychology major cannot avoid all discussion of mental illness in classes—doing so would compromise a substantial portion of that student’s education. Still, even in this case, trigger warnings prove useful. If the student knows in advance that a triggering subject will be discussed, they can seek the proper resources to cope with it, such as scheduling a therapy session for after a particularly difficult class or learning strategies to remain calm during lectures. In cases like these, nobody’s education is compromised, and everyone remains safe.

Ultimately, it isn’t hard for a professor to say, at the end of a lecture, “We’re going to be discussing self-harm in next week’s classes. If you feel like that might negatively impact your mental health, come talk to me.” It takes one sentence to warn students in advance that a speaker coming to campus plans on discussing their experiences with abusive parents. These things are easier than many other accessibility measures the University unquestioningly employs like wheelchair ramps.

Trigger warnings don’t argue the lecturer can’t discuss self-harm in their class, or that the speaker isn’t allowed to come to campus. Healthy discussion would still take place, but students would remain safe throughout, either by sitting out of non-essential situations or by adequately preparing themselves for them.

Rebecca Zaritsky She is a Freshman in the College.

by

Byte the Bullet: Let Students Use Their Computers So far, my time at Georgetown has been one of adjustment. Like most freshmen, I got lost in the labyrinth as I searched for Darnall’s I-9 office for student employees.

Academically, I am still struggling to adjust to the readings that every class is assigning. However, as I spent the last few months preparing for college, I knew these challenges were awaiting me.

But one change has been a complete surprise. When I was sitting in my first class at Georgetown, my professor announced that no electronics, not even laptops, would be allowed. I imagined that he would be an isolated case.

I hoped he would be a lone old-school professor whom I could approach privately to ask for an exception. I could then continue taking neat, organized size fourteen font notes on my laptop. But this fantasy was shattered in my next class. Another professor, in a different subject area, gave the exact same ban on electronics.

My professors’ reliance on the old-fashioned pen and paper was going to be a challenge for me. I have bad handwriting and thus have always struggled to take notes. I joke that I can’t read my own handwriting, so when I take notes I only do it to waste paper. In high school, I eventually found a solution: I would carry a small 11-inch Chromebook between classes and take organized and detailed notes by typing away on my computer. It worked. I was able to to focus on my classes by taking beautiful color coded notes with

indents. I expected to rely on the same note taking approach in college, but then, I learned I couldn’t.

I understand my professor’s intentions, though. They want students to be active and engaged in class, not staring down and checking their email or browsing Buzzfeed. The professors I have spoken with also believe in the pedagogy of note taking. By slowly writing down and connecting with the written word rather than quickly typing at letters, students are able to better retain and interact with the information.

I do believe there is some truth to this argument.

Certainly, for languages in different scripts, students should be learning the letters and writing them out as they begin to internalize the Arabic alphabet or hundreds of Chinese characters. However, applying a blanket “no electronics” rule ignores the fact that technology can be used in conjunction with old fashioned handwriting (behold the stylus and tablet). Many modern computers now have beautiful touchscreens and note taking software, which can be used by students to sketch charts in economics or characters in Farsi and keep them neatly compiled in a digital folder. Modern technology can aid the students who need it without sacrificing the advantages of the old fashioned notebook.

So, after spending the first few days of classes jotting down chaotic disorganized notes, I approached my professor after class to ask for an exception. I promised to

not be a jerk about my computer usage and move to the side of the classroom to avoid being a distraction. I intended to use the computer only for note-taking purposes and to stay attentive and active during lectures and discussion. My request was denied, and now, in order to use a computer, I must contact the Academic Resource Center. In my first few weeks here I don’t want to bring unnecessary attention to myself or create a hassle. Now, I’m faced with the question of whether I would rather have to deal with the ARC or illegible notes.

Georgetown as an institution is deeply embedded in its traditions. There is a heavy focus on a classical liberal arts education. Students are not pushed to practice computer programming or explore modern applications of technology. Rather, we are encouraged to read classic philosophy texts and participate in mock business interviews with formal attire. This mentality is evidenced by professors finding it acceptable to deny any and all electronic devices in the classroom. The computer is no longer the future; the computer is the present and it should have a place in classrooms through the country and the world.

Adam Shlomi He is a Freshman in the SFS. by

7

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

Why Georgetown’s Apology Isn’t “Reparations” President DeGioia, in his remarks introducing the measures to be taken to atone for the University’s sale of 272 slaves, spoke of a need to “reconcile” Georgetown’s history of and participation in the institution of slavery. On campus, the sentiment I’ve picked up on thus far has been that the university has, either partially or fully, done just that. Some see the measures DeGioia announced as a first step in the eventual, more complete process of reconciliation; others, some of whom never acknowledged the need for the university to act in the first place, see them as the extent of reconciliation.

Nothing is more indicative of this second attitude than the rhetorical framing of DeGioia’s announcement, and more specifically what its details amount to.

On Friday, The Hoya ran an editorial which claimed that, “while the wounds can never be fully healed, what the university has done now is both a solid measure of progress and a firm foundation from which to work in the future.” That same day, they ran a story with the following headline: “Descendants of the 272 React to Reparations.” The Chronicle of Higher Education used that same word, “reparations,” in a story it published about DeGioia’s announcement. A Slate piece read: “Georgetown’s Reparations are to be Commended. But White Catholics Still Owe Black Americans More.” Even Ta-Nehisi Coates, author of what is perhaps the most influential argument in The Atlantic concerning reparations of the last decade, initially labeled the measures reparations.

This use of the term reparations—this mislabeling—is dangerous.

Primarily, it lacks foundation in fact and historical precedent. In an

enlightening, but perhaps under-circulated, piece for Vox, sociologist Tressie McMillan Cottom outlined the three parts needed for a policy or action to constitute reparations: “acknowledgement, restitution, and closure.” She argues that while Georgetown has provided specific acknowledgement of its wrongdoing, it has yet to provide restitution which mirrors fully its wrongdoing, and therefore has not achieved closure. The piece, and Cottom’s argument, is insightful, cutting, and persuasive, but it did not seem to break the surface of on-campus dialogue surrounding this issue.

Most significant in this mislabeling is the equation of material loss with potential. As DeGioia noted in his remarks, Georgetown benefited— in fact, even owes its existence as an institution— directly and materially “from the sale of 272 children, women, and men.” Fact-based, historical analysis sheds light on, and gives real numbers for, the economic damage done to enslaved people in this country. Put simply, Georgetown sold and separated real people and families into work they did not choose and were not compensated for, stripped them of their human rights and dignity, and was complicit in their future exclusion from voting, legal, housing, educational, health-care, and vocational rights.

To reconcile this reality would be to provide financial and material restitution for a financial and material crime. Preferential admissions misses this mark. It provides potential future returns for past material losses. It assumes that individuals can and will leap through the immense socioeconomic loops to get the grades and scores and leadership roles to put one in the position to even be considered for admission to Georgetown.

And, as Cottom points out, it fails to acknowledge the reality that the income and net worth of white families without college degrees often exceeds those of black families with them. Likewise, it overlooks deeprooted job discrimination, documented in studies that present employers with identical resumes—one, though, with a stereotypical white name and one with a stereotypical black name—who subsequently choose the white name resume. Reparations acknowledges and seeks to address founded economic disparities with mechanisms of economic alleviation.

Reparations provides scholarships, vocational programs, grants for books, tutoring, and debt-relief for the 272 descendants.

But to call what Georgetown did reparations isn’t just intellectually and factually lazy (or dishonest); it’s rhetorically dangerous. It sets a precedent for the use of “reparations” in contexts lacking material solutions; it lowers the bar for an actual conversation this country needs to have about what it owes those whose backs we built and continue to build this country on; it diminishes and denies the undeniable, ubiquitous damage done—in forced labor centuries ago and in segregation, incarceration, and denial of access to education, housing, and health care today—to black people and communities in this nation.

I happen to think it hasn’t, but whether or not Georgetown has reconciled its past with these current steps is a conversation we can have.

In the meantime, though, let’s be careful to use rhetoric and language of moral and intellectual honesty. Let’s not denigrate one of the most powerful concepts related to race relations as we seek to resolve and reconcile our own.

by

Adam Semprevivo

Isaiah Fleming-Klink He is a Sophomore in the SFS.

“This use of the term reparations— this mislabeling— is dangerous.

Primarily, it lacks foundation in fact and historical precedent.”

VOICES

Reckless Rhetoric

8

SEPTEMBER 16, 2016

High on the Hill

D.C.’s Uncovered Cannabis Industry

By Michael Bergin D.C. has a complicated relationship with marijuana policy.

The capital of the nation is generally considered America’s gray area when it comes to marijuana legalization. Although previously subjected to stringent federal laws, D.C. residents expressed their approval of the legalization bill, titled Initiative 71, which went into effect on Feb. 26 2015.

Individuals can grow their own cannabis, smoke in private residences, and gift up to an ounce to others, but any form of sale or public smoking of marijuana is forbidden. While you can likely walk around the city with two ounces of cannabis in your hands—roughly two full sandwich bags of the drug—with no problems, a misstep onto federal land, which comprises 21 percent of D.C.’s total acreage, could result in a felony charge and a year in prison for the carrier. D.C.’s sticky situation stems from its lack of statehood. According to Kate Bell, Legislative Counsel for the Marijuana Policy Project, “D.C. is a weird hybrid because of congressional interference.”

Initiative 71, however, contains a caveat that means a great deal more to the marijuana business community: it legalizes the sale of marijuana-related paraphernalia.

The creation of the cannabis industry is a new and often overlooked element of legalization. A plethora of new careers have emerged, ranging from cannabis gardening shops to event planning for marijuana sharing parties.

In the past, paraphernalia, often called glass or glassware, needed to be sold under a tobacco-related name, typically “waterpipe.” Smoking devices were a constant liability, threatening up to three years in jail on felony charges if law enforcement believed that they were being sold for cannabis usage. Stores would immediately ask a customer to leave if they even said the word bong, because this word alone was enough grounds for police to charge them with sale for drug use.

“Head shops,” named for their “pothead” clientele, have stepped into uncharted territory. What was once a subtle, somewhat seedy business model is now legitimate, presenting new found challenges that come with freedom.

The federal government is in charge of Washington’s budget. So, when a medical marijuana initiative passed in 1998 by popular vote, Congress proceeded to attach a line item to every D.C. annual budget for the next eleven years, banning any

funds from being appropriated to the approved bill. All D.C. initiatives must be budget neutral; no funding can be permitted, allocating liberties but not finances.

Among the most vocal business owners around the issue of marijuana legalization were Adam Eidinger and Alan Amsterdam, co-owners of Capitol Hemp. Capitol Hemp had a reputation for being a less-than-discreet smoke shop. Books about cannabis and citizens’ rights and pot leaf apparel were sold alongside various waterpipes marked “for tobacco use only.”

Eidinger, a longtime advocate of the legalization movement, co-founded the DCMJ advocacy group in 2013 along with a friend named Nikolas Schiller. Additionally, in 2010 Schiller served as director of communications for Eidenger and Amsterdam’s D.C. Cannabis Campaign, which aimed for full cannabis legalization and was later absorbed into DCMJ. In late October 2011, before it had truly gotten off the ground, their movement was slowed to a grinding halt. D.C. police raided the store with warrants to search for drug paraphernalia. An on-scene test proved positive for THC, the

in

9

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

psychoactive chemical that gives cannabis its physical effects.

Six people were arrested, and in exchange for dropped charges and the return of nearly half a million dollars in merchandise, Eidinger and Amsterdam were forced to shut down their two Capitol Hemp locations.

After these events, the two, along with Schiller, devoted themselves to legalization, drafting the proposal that would become Initiative 71. Three years and 115,000 supporting votes later, their initiative passed, allowing for every provision except the sale of marijuana.

Capitol Hemp has since reopened, along with many other local smoke shops. The fear of being prosecuted, at least on paper, has disappeared. “The beauty of 71 is that it made that gray area very crystal. That if you wanted to sell a bong, you don’t have to use coded language and call it a waterpipe,” Schiller said. “You could say, ‘you can put your weed in there’ and be direct about it instead of saying ‘put your product in there, put your tobacco in there.” Legally this is a success for the Campaign and cannabis users, yet the competition of a free market has emerged as a new fear.

Schiller described Eidinger and Amsterdam as advocates over salesmen. They are well-informed policy experts pushing for what they consider a civil liberty.

But not all D.C. shop owners were so concerned with advocacy. Many owners who sold—and some who continue to sell—glassware under the “tobacco only” title were just concerned with their livelihood.

They do not follow the law minute by minute, nor do they preach the legalization message. Beyond this, the impact of legalization is limited by the lack of visibility of this change, as most shop owners still feel the effects of the traditional anti-pot stigma.

Zack Drissi, co-owner of Bazaar Atlas and a father of five who immigrated to the U.S. from Morocco in 1984, is one shop owner who has capitalized on the sale of glassware. A quick glance into his store gives off the atmosphere of a busy flea market stall. Located in Adams Morgan, the shop is cluttered with pile upon pile of various hand crafted goods, most reflecting Drissi’s interest in African Art, including handcarved masks and handbags hanging from the ceiling.

Atop the counter, however, lies a unique portion of this trinket store’s nearly 30 years of success in one of D.C.’s most affluent neighborhoods. Drissi must peek over this section of lighters, glass pipes, bongs, and metallic grinders donning Bob Marley’s dazed grin that clutter the entire front counter in order to speak with his customers.

Drissi previously ran a similar store in Morocco, which he broadly identified as a place for hand crafted goods. Glass pipes were sold as well. He sells pipes simply because they pay the bills, and legalization has not affected his sales much at all.

“The big change for the head shop, the one has all the glass.

But you know, really, for me it is like I said: 12 to 10 percent. It’s not much,” Drissi said.

Drissi remains one of the many vendors who has refused to embrace the head shop title. Although he is neutral about legalization, his opinion is that an association with cannabis can only stigmatize his shop and undermine the sale of the countless other items he offers.

“You know what’s something, the glass pipes, they hurt the business. If people come through with the kids ... they was thinking I was a head shop.” Although hookah pipes drive a large percentage of his sales, he is fine with taking down his “tobacco only” signs and

allowing customers to purchase for whatever purpose they desire.

Scattered throughout Washington, D.C. are various places to purchase paraphernalia. Many like Drissi act with caution, leaving usage of the glass to the buyer’s discretion. One store however, proudly identifies itself as “the only weed shop up in D.C.,” as their sign reads.

Even on weeknights, NoMa’s Island Dyes stays open with bright lights and speakers blasting rap through their open front door. Inside is any possible piece of weed equipment you can think of, all advertised as such. Next to the front door is a large “Thank You for Pot Smoking” sign and a poster of a scantilyclad woman advertising RAW rolling papers.

Since the store opened two and a half years ago, its goal is to be known as a place for people who smoke marijuana. Island Dyes is a small East Coast franchise, with a main location based in North Carolina, and its stance as a paraphernalia shop for cannabis is clear. Although a pre-legalization world forced them to use different terminology, their target audience was clear.

Both Island Dyes and Bazaar Atlas, as vendors of paraphernalia, are keenly aware of what they are and what they wish to be. Drissi has been slowly moving his glass pieces away from the front of his shop as they scare away certain customers.

He faces a daily tradeoff for this 10 percent of his yearly earnings, “I had [pipes] for the last almost 25 years, but still people didn’t want to come to the shop anymore because of the glass pipes.”

Even before legalization had been fully implemented in early 2015, shop owners have been seeing the effect of an over-saturated, niche market. Despite cannabis proliferation, Island Dyes and Bazaar Atlas report relatively little increase in their business, head shop title or not. This is challenging in a place like D.C. where urban planning trends have put the squeeze on small businesses. Bazaar Atlas is locked into a 3 percent rent increase every five years. D.C. has seen gentrification and massive infrastructural overhaul. In Adams Morgan alone the median home value is $552,700, marking an increase of over $100,000 since 2010 according to Zillow.

Schiller, of the D.C. Cannabis Campaign, is aware that this newfound freedom to sell cannabis paraphernalia has not given glassware proprietors any mercy from the free market. Looking toward the future, Schiller said that embracing the pro-cannabis culture would aid shops struggling to stay in business.

“The people that are quiet about [legalization] generally aren’t advocates, they’re just businessmen. And they don’t want their names out there even though they don’t realize having their name out there and being an advocate brings them business,” said Schiller. “It might resonate with people that see that ‘hey this guy is doing the right thing I’m going to support his business.”

It may be too late in some regards, as everywhere from liquor stores to gas stations edge in on the profit by setting up a glassware shelf. The market is saturating, which may explain why Island Dyes and Bazaar Atlas have seen very little improvement in the amount of glassware they sell. Drissi claimed that six new stores have opened up in his neighborhood of Adams Morgan alone, all trying to capitalize on the market.

These openings also do not take into consideration other entrepreneurs trying to profit from Initiative 71. Glass sales are only a portion of the business models active in D.C. cannabis culture. Just a few doors down from Drissi’s shop is the easy to

“Next to the front door is a large ‘THANK YOU FOR POT SMOKING’ sign and a poster of a scantily-clad woman advertising RAW rolling papers.”

ALL PHOTOS BY ISABEL LORD

14.3% CBS NEWS POLL

70% according to the washington post

of the D.C. population actively smokes marijuana

of D.C. resident voters supported Initiative 71

10

SEPTEMBER 16, 2016

miss Grow Club D.C. Inside is a mix of a hippy trinket store and practical place for gardening supplies. Tie dye backpacks and pot leaf t-shirts hang on hooks while brightly colored watering cans and plastic picket fencing. The owner of the shop is Eddie Williams, D.C. resident, entrepreneur, and recreational cannabis enthusiast.

Williams opened up his shop 18 months ago, inspired by his city becoming the first place on the East Coast to enact legalization. He began to grow his own marijuana for personal consumption, and the deep satisfaction of successful crop yields led him to a business model of his own.

“We started thinking and pondering, and it was like, ‘well let’s just help other people to grow, and start their grows.’ So that’s what we started doing. We wanted to be different from other people, so what we did is we started to build custom cabinets, grow cabinets.”

Williams sells, installs, and offers monthly checkups on hydroponic– waterless cultivation tents for marijuana plant growing. Initiative 71 permits individuals living in D.C. to grow six marijuana plants in their residence, or 12 if more than one adult lives in the residence.

The store is designed for the city’s peculiar laws and cityscape.

“We wanted to be unique and different, and kind of capitalize on D.C.’s smaller space and level of discreteness.

With the government and everything, a lot of people work for the government and still smoke, but they want a level of discreteness instead of having a big tent in their room or house,” Williams said.

Grow classes are available for paying members, and with the paid membership comes something even more unusual: free cannabis. Anyone who pays for classes can receive weed in the form of seeds; clones, a cannabis plant that grows after being cut off of another “mother plant;” edibles, cannabis cooked into various baked goods or candies; or smokeable cannabis.

The practice is allowed within the confines of the law.

This special gift is what keeps his business model thriving. Even the tent selling field is being flooded with competitors. Williams sees these trends in his city, comparing it to the inundation of websites and economic boom created in the dotcom bubble of the mid to late ’90s. Many stores, less concerned with quality or a comprehensive business model, have suddenly emerged.

“I would say that their business has been cut into drastically by the Initiative 71 movement … it’s cutting into those businesses that strictly rely on selling glass pipes and bongs and stuff like that,” Williams said.

Independent vendors are among this new group entering the market. Not weighted down by storefront rent or other various forms of overhead, they are making easy profit.

Some businesses, like Island Dyes and Grow Club, continue to thrive through their community. D.C. is stuck in a legalization stasis, and the cannabis community is adrift together in an unclear legal system. William’s system of classes and home installations turns customers into loyal, familiar faces.

Island Dyes, with its broader base, has adapted to the new law by offering new services like custom bong repairs and cleanings.

Although people are still being arrested for selling marijuana in D.C. and given lengthy sentences, Drissi, and Williams, have only had positive experiences with law enforcement since Initiative 71 was passed.

“As long as you don’t do anything super blatant, absurd, gift and donate to kids, and don’t ride around in cars that are wrapped with weed over it, f*ckin’ smoke right next to a cop, it’ll be alright,” Williams said.

A great deal of problems with the law come from genuine ignorance. Island Dye’s proximity to Union Station generates out-of-towner foot traffic, and Adam’s Morgan’s famous shops and nightlife have a similar effect on visitors. Williams is acutely

“A lot of people work for the government and still smoke, but they want a level of discreteness...”

aware of the problems generated by the confusing nature of D.C. cannabis law.

“A lot of out-of-towners think it’s like Colorado out here.

They really think you can just go in here, go into a dispensary, and just get weed openly. And you have to kind of let them know that, no, it’s not like that at all.”

Stores are no longer being raided for their paraphernalia, and the overall relationship with law enforcement has improved as a result. Nikolas Schiller himself is a cannabis user who enjoys this more transparent relationship. “I would say there is a better trust with law enforcement, because in the past if there was something on you, you’d be afraid that you couldn’t go to the police for something because you’re a criminal and now you’re not,” he said.“There’s a certain amount of freedom that comes back with that.”

Although the Metropolitan Police declined to comment, D.C. police officers have received updated training modules to ensure they know the specifications of the new law.

A lot has changed since President Richard Nixon first declared the war on drugs. D.C. is now one of the many places in the United States well on its way to full legalization. A recent CBS study found that 14.29 percent of the D.C. population actively smokes marijuana, and, according to the Washington Post, nearly 70 percent of voters supported Initiative 71.

For now, the D.C. cannabis community can only expand through the generosity of others and their own willingness to participate in the process. August 2016 marked a setback for the movement as the Obama administration rejected a bid to put this drug, currently classified as a Schedule 1 Drug under the Controlled Substances Act, up for reclassification.

Eddie Williams and people like him, however, are confident in what the future holds for D.C. statehood and a fast track to full legalization.

“D.C. now has money [due to recent gentrification], they didn’t used to have this amount of money they have now 10 years ago, 15 years ago. They were always reliant on ‘taxation without representation’ right? Always relying on the Feds, now they have all this money, and they’re like f*ck you I can stand up on my own. This is actually the most realistic time for them to become their own state.”

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

11

Federal Ruling Sparks TA Unionization Discussions across Campuses

By Caitlyn Cobb

Teaching and research assistants at private universities like Georgetown gained the right to unionize on Aug. 23 with a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling, the Voice reported on Sept. 2. The ruling has the potential to impact undergraduate and graduate student assistants, and student groups across Georgetown’s campuses have begun evaluating unionization.

The Doctoral Students Coalition (DSC), an advocacy group for Ph.D. students at Georgetown, organized a working group on unionization at the beginning of the summer in anticipation of the ruling. The working group plans to present its research and findings at a forum in October open to all student TAs. Jake Earl, a Ph.D. student in the philosophy department and interim treasurer of the DSC, said that he was initially skeptical about unionization, but his research as part of the working group changed that. “From all the data that we looked at, it seems that students do better with unions, not just in terms of how much money they get, but in terms of how quickly they graduate, the kind of support that they get while they’re here in terms of conference travel, in terms of travel, in terms of research funding,” Earl said.

Earl believes any union should be formed democratically. He believes a union should best be formed with strong consensus from the TA community.

Hailey Huget, another philosophy Ph.D. student and the interim president of the DSC, agreed and said unionization could be another means to advocate for doctoral students. “I am very excited about the ruling, if only because it gives us more tools in our tool belt, so to speak, to advocate for Ph.D. students’ interests on campus.”

Other graduate student groups have been involved in the unionization discussion as well.

The Graduate Student Government has been in contact with both the DSC and the Medical Center Graduate Student Organization (MCGSO) about unionization since March, according to the organization. They plan to present their findings at the October event along with the DSC working group on unionization.

The variations in context for TAs are an important consideration for any future moves toward unionization, according to Earl. One example is compensation. Some undergraduate TAs receive course credit, while others are paid by the hour. Another is whether or not a TA pays tuition.

“From all the data that we looked at, it seems that students do better with unions, not just in terms of how much money they get...”

According to Earl, nearly every Ph.D. student’s tuition is fully funded by the University, whereas most master’s students pay themselves. Within doctoral programs, Georgetown lists per-credit-hour rates. Estimating the costs for his program, which requires 45 credit hours of coursework plus fees for the time spent working on dissertations, Earl estimates that the University essentially charges itself about $100,000 in tuition and fees for one student’s Ph.D. This year, TAs in the philosophy department are paid $27,000 for 15 hours of work per week. These variations in the financial contexts for TAs in different schools, not to mention

the differences in TA compensation between departments even within the same schools, all contribute to the complexity of conversations about TA unionization at Georgetown.

Student research assistants like those in the Medical Center are also included in the ruling.

Erin Wenzel, a doctoral student in the Medical Center’s Department of Pharmacology and the vice president of the MCGSO, says she believes that the employer/employee relationship defined by the ruling is relevant in the laboratory.

“At other schools that we’ve seen, students who are not part of the union, Ph.D. students, student workers benefit from the standards that are set by the union.”

“I argue that many aspects of an employer/employee relationship including mutual respect and reliance, open communication, and support for current and future endeavors, still apply in the laboratory environment,” Wenzel wrote in an email to the Voice.

Earl expects the October event to help the DSC gain a better understanding of what kind of TAs, if any, within the student body are interested in unionization. According to Earl, a TA union would likely benefit all TAs, even those who might not be included.

“At other schools that we’ve seen, students who are not part of the union, Ph.D. students, student workers, benefit from the standards that are set by the union. Typically universities don’t treat students in the collective bargaining unit and outside of the bargaining unit radically differently,” said Earl.

The language of the NLRB ruling includes undergraduate TAs as well. Obed Ventura, (SFS ’19), co-chair of the GUSA student worker affairs team, has reached out to undergraduate TAs about unionization. Ventura said he has spoken primarily with TAs in the biology department of the College, none of whom have been especially interested in unionization.

Jake Curran, (COL ’19), started working as a TA this semester in the biology department, and said he does not know how an undergraduate union would work in practice. “I have not had any experience thus far as a TA that would make me think, ‘I need to be a part of a union,” Curran wrote in an email to the Voice.

Another outstanding question is how the University administration will respond to an attempt to unionize. Georgetown has yet to clarify its stance on TA unionization, with the Graduate School of the Arts and Sciences saying that they are reviewing the ruling. Other private universities, including Columbia and Yale, have said that they discourage unionization.

They argue that unionization and collective bargaining would undermine the academic nature of a university’s relationship with its TAs. According to Earl, any decision for TA unionization would be more likely to happen next year, with another year or more of contract negotiations. He said that optimistically speaking, the University would promote an open conversation and keep the Catholic Church’s commitment to workers’ right to unionization in mind.

12

SEPTEMBER 16, 2016

Rise of Keegan Rosenberry Former Hoya Climbs MLS Ranks

By Robbie Ponce and Jon Block As fighter jets soared and fireworks flared above Avaya Stadium in San Jose, California on a warm July afternoon, Keegan Rosenberry exited the stadium locker room and looked out onto the soccer pitch. Less than 20 feet from where the underground tunnel met the pristine grass field, the 22-year-old found himself pacing over a carpeted surface that read “Major League Soccer All-Star Game 2016.”

He followed the pre-game procession onto the pitch, where he was met by countless flashing cameras and 18,000 fans whose earsplitting ovation was matched only by the thundering drums that sounded from the stadium PA system. Rosenberry’s no. 12 jersey emerged under the San Jose sun accompanied by some of the most recognizable names in professional soccer, from World Cup champions David Villa and Andrea Pirlo to international stars Kaká, Didier Drogba, and Giovani Dos Santos.

On this afternoon, however, Rosenberry wasn’t merely receiving the ultimate soccer fan experience. He shared the same jersey with these soccer legends because he was selected as one of the 11 best players in Major League Soccer.

Representing his hometown Philadelphia Union, Rosenberry was the only MLS rookie chosen to start against English Premier League giants Arsenal FC in the MLS All-Star Game.

With a coy smirk and bright eyes, the recent Georgetown graduate exchanged pleasantries with the opposing team and jogged out to his starting position at right fullback. The opening whistle blew, and the crowd sat down to watch the best of the MLS compete against the Premier League stars. Rosenberry recognized that this soccer game wasn’t merely an ordinary kick-around, as the rousing ovation he received in San Jose was more grandiose than any pregame festivities he had participated in during his four seasons of collegiate soccer at Georgetown. Nonetheless, even on the biggest stage in American professional soccer, the young fullback knew that he fully deserved to share the field with the MLS’ best talent.

“I had the time of my life,” Rosenberry said of his experience at the 2016 MLS All-Star Game. “Once I got out

there, I just tried to enjoy every moment. Seeing the next level I can perform at and practice at, and just seeing how some of the world class players carry themselves… It was a learning experience and I just tried to soak it all in.”

Within a year, so much has changed for the former Georgetown captain. Rosenberry’s rise to MLS stardom was unprecedented, but only the latest obstacle that the fullback has had to overcome throughout his soccer career.

“

I’ve said it before and I think a lot of rookies come into the league with just as much talent, and just as much work ethic as I have. [I’m] thankful that the coaching staff has given me a chance to play this year–I’ve done my best to take advantage of that.

”

“It’s difficult for me to put into words,” Rosenberry said of the chaotic past year and the subsequent recognition and success it has brought him. “The best way I can describe it is that I’m just extremely thankful for the opportunities I’ve been given. I’ve said it before and I think a lot of rookies come into the league with just as much talent, and just as much work ethic as I have. [I’m] thankful that the coaching staff has given me a chance to play this year–I’ve done my best to take advantage of that.”

A little over a year ago, Rosenberry was announced as the captain of the 2015-16 Georgetown men’s soccer team that was ranked No. 3 in the nation in the National Soccer Coaches Association of America (NSCAA) Preseason Poll.

The team rebounded from an underwhelming 0-2-1 start to the season with a victory against the UCLA Bruins, who were at the time ranked No. 1 in the nation. Georgetown’s win against the Bruins was the beginning of the most storied run in program history, which included an 18-game undefeated streak. With the national recognition that the Hoyas received during this historic run, Rosenberry’s stock as a potential MLS prospect began to rise.

“I think it definitely surprised me,” Rosenberry said. “Throughout my career, I was just hoping to play professionally.”

As the streak progressed, Rosenberry, who was an anchor on the best defense in the NCAA, began to receive increased media buzz. At the conclusion of the season, MLS scouts and media outlets began projecting Rosenberry as a potential first round pick, and after an impressive display at the MLS Combine, the Georgetown fullback was projected as a mid-toearly first rounder.

By the time the 2016 MLS Superdraft came in January, the Pennsylvania native’s stock was at an all-time high.

After trading for the second overall pick and drafting his Georgetown teammate Joshua Yaro, the Philadelphia Union selected Rosenberry with the third overall pick in the Draft.

Even after he was chosen by Philadelphia, however, the 22-year-old realized that a tough road awaited him if he were to make the team’s final roster for the Union’s upcoming season.

“The interesting thing about the draft is even if you get drafted in the first round, if you don’t make the team, you can still be cut after your tryout with the team in preseason,” said Rosenberry. “So that was my end goal– just to make the team.”

One aspect that was helpful in Rosenberry’s transition from the college to the professional game was his familiarity with the Philadelphia Union organization. The fullback had played within the Union academy system before he ever put on a Georgetown uniform, and he trained with the Union’s first team before beginning his senior season with the Hoyas.

“It gave me confidence when I was drafted by the [Union] to feel like I already belonged there,” said Rosenberry. “I knew which door to go in when we got to the stadium on the first day. I felt like I belonged as opposed to like a rookie. I think just knowing some of the staff and knowing some of

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

the players gave me confidence immediately. I felt like I made that transition even easier and there weren’t as many doubts as maybe another rookie would have with another team. So, I think that helped me a lot.”

Rosenberry made his first start for the Union at fullback less than a month after the MLS Superdraft, in a preseason contest against the Chicago Fire. Though his team lost, Rosenberry impressed his teammates and coaching staff. As the Union’s preseason campaign progressed, Rosenberry notched several more starts for Philadelphia and found himself in the conversation for a starting spot at right back for the Union with the MLS season on the horizon.

On March 6, with the Union poised to open their regular season MLS campaign against Western Conference powerhouse FC Dallas, the 22-year-old Rosenberry, who had just months before left the Hilltop in pursuit of a career in professional soccer, was selected to the Union’s starting lineup.

“I definitely didn’t expect [to start], but as preseason continued and I started more games, I heard good things from the coaching staff,” said Rosenberry. “It kind of seemed like it was going to happen and it was exciting. But for me, I tried not to look too much into it. For me, being in that first game in front of a real crowd that I really ever experienced, it was nice to kind of have the warm-up and be [in Dallas] the day before.

Taking in the surroundings makes it that much easier to settle in to the first couple minutes.”

It turns out that Rosenberry’s start in the Union’s opening contest against FC Dallas was just the beginning for the rising star. The fullback has started and played a full 90 minutes in each of Philadelphia’s 29 games this season, and leads the MLS in minutes played. The former Georgetown captain shined against the Los Angeles Galaxy on May 11, making crucial defensive stops in oneon-one positions against Galaxy strikers Giovani Dos Santos and Robbie Keane, and scoring his first MLS goal to help the Union earn a 2-2 tie against Los Angeles.

Rosenberry’s individual success has had a remarkable impact upon the Philadelphia Union, who wallowed at the bottom of the MLS with the league’s second-worst record in 2015, but now find themselves thick in the playoff hunt with just five games left to play in the regular season. Rosenberry himself is in the conversation for MLS Rookie of the Year and, even more remarkably, has had his name mentioned for a potential call-up to the United States Men’s National Team.

“I think it should be every player’s goal to play for the national team and to represent their country,” said Rosenberry.

Rosenberry pushes the ball upfield.

13

“They can handle themselves, and they can figure out how to operate the team,” said Rosenberry. “That’s what builds leadership, is how well the captains bring the team together in times of defeats. It was a tough start to the season and I think they know that. But yeah, every now and then I’ll shoot them a text and keep in touch with all of them. Especially playing on a team like that that is so close, you have friends for a lifetime that you’re building relationships with.”

Rosenberry scans the field for the Union.

Philadelphia Union

“That’s always been a goal of mine, but those kind of awards and those call-ups and stuff like that are things you can’t control. It’s out of your hands. Just like I talked about with any of the articles written or any of the media attention or the AllStar game, that [attention] isn’t going to continue to be put in front of me if I don’t continue to work hard and do what I’m doing, be open to listening to coaches and learning. So, that’s been one of my biggest focuses.”

Rosenberry’s decisive confidence on the pitch is complemented by his appreciable modesty off it, as he has attributed much of the success he has enjoyed to the help of his former teammates and coaches who prepared him to thrive at the highest level of United States professional soccer. Even after appearing in the MLS All-Star Game, and competing night in and night out with some of the best talent in the MLS, the 22-year-old still fondly looks back on his time at Georgetown, which he says allowed him to grow as both a player and a man.

“I’m thankful I went to a place like Georgetown with a staff and a group of guys that prepared me for the next level,” said Rosenberry.

Though the Georgetown men’s soccer team started its season 0-4 in 2016, Rosenberry still says that he makes a concerted effort to watch his alma mater when they play, and also to keep in contact with his former teammates who still wear the blue and gray. However, despite the Hoyas’ slow start to their 2016 season, Rosenberry doesn’t reach out to his former teammates with the sole purpose of trying to help Georgetown turn things around this season.

GUHoyas.com

“

The team’s success is going to generate individual awards and accolades and success. I think the best thing [Georgetown] can do is just perform well as a team and continue to play well as a group, and I think the individual stuff will come into fruition because of that.

”

The prosperity that Rosenberry has enjoyed with the Union this season is something that he hasn’t taken lightly, but the former Georgetown captain has exhibited within the last year what it takes for a college soccer player to make a seamless transition to the professional game. Rosenberry is not the first Georgetown player to achieve success beyond the college level, but just how much he has accomplished in such a short time is remarkable and serves as a model for future Georgetown players looking to achieve similar success. Still, Rosenberry believes that for the Hoyas, individual success should not be the ultimate goal.

“I think the great thing about Georgetown and their coaching staff and the national recognition that we started to get is that it operates itself,” said Rosenberry. “If you guys perform on the field, it’s going to take care of itself. Coach [Brian] Wiese always talks about that. The team’s success is going to generate individual awards and accolades and success.

I think the best thing [Georgetown] can do is just perform well as a team and continue to play well as a group, and I think the individual stuff will come into fruition because of that.”

If anything, this team-first mentality has already started producing results. Including his Union teammate Yaro, Rosenberry was one of six Georgetown players taken in the 2016 MLS SuperDraft. And so while the fullback’s rise has been exceptional, it should be seen not as some far-off fantasy, but rather as a standard to which all Georgetown soccer players should strive to achieve.

A lot has changed for Keegan Rosenberry within the past year, but it wasn’t so long ago that he was taking classes on the Hilltop and practicing on Shaw Field. Just like so many Georgetown students, Rosenberry had the dream of tackling the professional world after college, even if his aspirations didn’t exactly mirror those of his peers.

In his quick but fastidious rise to MLS stardom, Rosenberry proved that for the professional attire of a Georgetown graduate, laced cleats and shin guards fit just as well as a suit and tie.

SEPTEMBER 16, 2016

LEISURE

14

Hanks Soars in Sully’s Gripping Story

By Carlos Miranda Warner Bros.

News concerning airplanes in New York City is rarely positive, as one character knowingly recalls in Sully. Yet this film, starring Tom Hanks, uses recent history to make flying exciting again. And although you might not want to be a passenger on this particular plane, the film is an uplifting thrill ride. Sully tells the story of Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, who famously landed a passenger airliner in the Hudson River in 2009 after an unprecedented engine failure. Hanks delivers a thoughtful performance that glues moviegoers to director Clint Eastwood’s suspenseful blockbuster.

US Airways Flight 1549 strikes a flock of birds soon after takeoff, causing the engines to lose power. Unable to return to any nearby airport, Sully (Hanks) sees the icy Hudson as the safest place to crash—or to execute a forced water landing. But, having successfully completed the water landing, the captain’s troubles do not end once his passengers are safely evacuated. Along with First Officer Jeff Skiles (Aaron Eckhart), Sully must endure several days of rigorous review and self-doubt as his reputation is smeared and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigators accuse him of endangering his passengers’ lives.

Sully is defined by its nonlinear approach to storytelling. Scriptwriter Todd Komarnicki takes advantage of the short duration of the incident to show it numerous times from varying viewpoints. Some perspectives are imagined: Sully replays the sequence in his head, haunted by the possibility that he could have crashed his passengers into densely-populated Manhattan. Other perspectives are virtual: during an NTSB hearing, the assembled crowd watches as pilots complete four simulations of the flight. Komarnicki does not show the 208-second Flight 1549 incident in full until late in the movie, when NTSB investigators play the cockpit recording at their final hearing.

T he back and for th nar rative creates a sense of anticipation without ever feeling drag g ed out. Viewers are constantly faced with the ambiguity of the question: did Sully make the right call? T here is a lot of exposition in this film, as the NTSB investig ation g radually uncovers new infor mation.

However, the film captivates the audience’s attention to such a deg ree that, by the end, the audience wants answers as badly as the g over nment does.

Throughout the movie, the writers whet the audience’s appetite for every detail of the flight as they are revealed piecemeal. When the time finally arrives for the full crash sequence, Sully meets the mark. Masterful direction places the viewer in seemingly myriad perspectives as the plane goes down, adeptly edited into a grand, cohesive sequence. Excruciatingly, Flight 1549 falls almost as if in slow motion, watched by New York City from office buildings, from cars driving by, from a helicopter, and finally from the passenger ferry that eventually aids in evacuating the flight’s passengers. The varied perspectives, with Manhattan as the backdrop, build up the plane’s descent to the epic proportions the story warrants.

Contrary to the panoramic shots of the plane, almost all shots of the characters are relatively close up. These close shots combine with quick cuts to keep the tempo fast, but more importantly they facilitate the audience’s connection with Sully. Hanks’ performance elevates the writing and adds depth to the character. He is reserved, but effective, conveying Sully’s concerns and feelings through facial expressions and body language. The viewer sympathizes with Sully from the very beginning until the end—from his distaste for the NTSB investigators to his gratification when it is revealed that he made the right choice.

As a character, Sully is mostly well-developed. The script goes to great lengths to humanize him, demonstrating his dedication as a pilot. His main concern is always his passengers, and Hanks captures that. Sully is humble, more worried about having failed the people who trusted him than about solidifying his reputation as a hero. He is a team player, praising the numerous other people that helped save the passengers. Eckhart quietly shines in his role as Skiles, giving a humorous performance as Sully’s right hand man. But as a father and husband, Sully is a bit flat. His wife occasionally calls him, worried about him and about their money troubles, but there is little emphasis on his home life. In the larger scope of the movie, this shortcoming is not a significant blemish, overshadowed by Sully’s credibility as a pilot.

Sully is absolutely riveting—the fast-paced script makes even the bureaucratic scenes compelling. Eastwood’s direction showcases stunning shots of Flight 1549, and skillfully captures Hanks’ impressive performance: the entire movie hinges on Tom Hanks’ Sully. As the audience shares his uncertainty about his decision and his legacy, Hanks commands our commiseration for his character in a way that only such a talented and veteran actor can.

15

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

By Anna Shuster It’s been three long years since Bastille’s first album, Bad Blood, rocketed the band into the public eye. Their single, “Pompeii,” was certified 5x Platinum after selling 5,000,000 copies, driving these indie rock darlings toward mainstream success. Wild World, the band’s newest release, combines the catchy hooks and the raw feeling that made Bastille famous with hip hop and electronic influences and an even broader emotional range.

Where Bad Blood was heavy and darkly beautiful, Wild World manages its weighty themes with a triumphant, pop-infused lightness. The opening track, “Good Grief,” is perhaps the best example. The track’s upbeat bassline, indie pop harmonies, and catchy chorus suggest that even the pain of the grieving process comes with moments of strange exhilaration, the pure dumbfounding joy of the human existence.

This exploration of the grieving process begins the album’s thematic mission: to explore what it means to be a human in the 21st century, with all the thrills and anxieties that come with the experience. It’s an ambitious goal, no doubt, but the frontman and lyricist Dan Smith has some experience with—the last album explored intimate human fears such as the fear of being forgotten or of being trapped in routine. The sweeping arc of this album touches on capital punishment (“Four Walls”), anxiety (“Snakes”), loss (“Good Grief ”), and the stranger-than-fiction horror of TV news (“Warmth”). The honest, unforced emotion behind each track demonstrates a sensitivity and rawness that has been Bastille’s hallmark.

Woven throughout the album to help frame and magnify these themes are snatches of dialogue from ‘80s sci-fi films and Elizabeth Pankova self-help tapes. Bastille’s past mixtapes and mashups have included plenty such soundbites in the past, so it’s no surprise they VOICE CHOICES: “Two Evils” take such a prominent place in Wild World. “Fake It,” a song about struggling to save a failing relationship, opens with a woman’s

“Fake It” voice from a ‘70s educational film talking about trying to find happiness in her crumbling marriage—an interesting, salient introduction to the track.

The track borrows hip hop beats as a sexy backdrop for Smith’s smooth, London-accented vocals. This is a taste of the strong hip hop and electronic influence throughout the album which, though successful at times, gets a bit heavy-handed. The band gets overambitious with the mixing board on tracks like “The Currents.” The layering is overcrowded, with synthesizers, clashing beats, and every so often an errant guitar floating through.

After this hectic track, the triumphant din of “Glory,” and the guitar-driven “Power,” “Two Evils” quietly emerges as the album’s most commanding track. The song feels like a long, hard look in the mirror with its introspective lyrics, simple guitar melody, and Smith’s effortless falsetto. More than any other song on this record, it represents what emotional depths Smith can reach as a songwriter.

Unfortunately, not all of Smith’s attempts at rawness hit home. “Winter Of Our Youth” seems to be reaching for the nostalgic sentimentality that “Laughter Lines” captured so well in 2013, but the lyricism is a little too blunt to stir strong feelings; “I’ve got nostalgia running through me and I don’t like it” just doesn’t have the same impact as the imagery and subtlety of the band’s previous work.

Despite these occasional lulls, Wild World has the irresistible hooks of a soaring pop album. Bastille manages to combine a variety of musical influences with the soul-bearing vocals and lyricism that brought them so much success on their previous album. This is an ambitious work in response to a bestselling debut album, and although it lacks a single as commanding as “Pompeii,” it’s a thoughtful testament to human resilience.

Lvl Up is lost in the noise

By Jon Block After two albums full of frenetic energy, LVL UP’s third album, Return to Love, displays many of the tropes of a maturing band. While the band’s songs were previously short and punchy, many now extend beyond four minutes. While their music once subsisted on simple guitar riffs, it now mixes in more experimental synthesizer effects. Yet despite these signs of apparent maturity, LVL UP are still utterly confused, as unsure of themselves as they’ve ever been.

Part of this confusion arises from the band’s unorthodox writing style. LVL UP started in Purchase, New York as a collaboration between guitarists Mike Caridi and Dave Benton and bassist Nick Corbo, and the three still write and sing all their own songs. For the many consistent musical qualities throughout the album, each band member’s songs distinctly stand on their own, making the album at times feel broken up and truncated.

If there is any kind of thread that ties the album together, it is the band’s expression of an inability to be understood. From the ponderings on spirituality in “Hidden Driver” to the boiling anger and resentment in “Pain,” there is a constant feeling on the album that the band’s experiences are unexplainable. Rather than try to solve or interpret the topics of their songs, the band submits to its uncertainty and embraces its lack of control. “The Closing Door” ends with the lyrics, “I don’t know what I’m looking for,” and that sentiment couldn’t be a better representation of the album as a whole.

Return to Love’s crowning achievement is in the way that the music uses distortion to convey a sense of inconclusiveness Adam Semprevivo throughout the album. Guitar distortion is far from new, but LVL UP make it the defining element of their music. The buzz of guitar amps is a constant presence on the album, creating a noisy but pleasant drone that envelops part of every song and is VOICE CHOICES: “The Closing Door” often more noticeable than the instruments or vocals.

“She Sustains Us” In the same way that the band gets lost in the subjects of their songs, the listener gets lost in the distortion of the music. In the beginning (and end) of “Five Men on the Ridge,” distortion combines with head-banging power cords to try and blot out any thought through pure noise. In “She Sustains Us,” distortion is a soothing constant below brilliant vocal harmonies. In these songs and others, it is easy to lose oneself and suddenly realize that several songs have passed by. Whether it is intentional or not, LVL UP stealthily and expertly transfer the feelings of the album onto their audience.

Return to Love is more a collection of confused ramblings than any kind of coherent statement. Listen to the album like it’s uncertain of itself. Get lost in the noise like the band is lost in their ideas. And don’t try to understand the album’s message, because LVL UP make it clear that they don’t understand the message themselves.

LEISURE

Bastille returns with Confidence

Just can’t get enough of the Voice ?

Now We have Podcasts listen on www.georgetownvoice.com and subscribe to ‘The Voice Podcast Network’ on iTunes