The Georgetown Voice, April 22, 2016

VOICE The Georgetown

B-12.00 -- Trim to 10.00Wx11.00D - CMYK - Georgetown

April 22, 2016

1

APRIL 22, 2016

2

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

staff editor-in-chief Kevin Huggard Managing editor Graham piro

Volume 48 • Issue 14

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 Columnists Louisa Christen, Yafet Negash, Austin Stollhaus, The Knights of Columbus

“map” by patricia lin

contents

halftime

Editorials

Carrying On: Home Runs and Circuses Graham Piro Up in Arms and Not so Happy with Happy Roey Hadar and Emmy Buck Contraception without Deception and The Road Less Traveled Emily Stephens, Kory Stuer, and Jordan Hughes A Shared Environment: D.C. and Environmental Jusice Caitlyn Cobb Doctoral Students Organize Against Restrictions Jake Maher Looking Back on a Year of Georgetown Athletics Sports Staff Twelfth Night Delights at the Gonda Theater Amy Guay Sing Street is an Entertaining, Mixed Blessing Caitlin Mannering

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

2

4 5 6 7 8 11 12 14 15

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.

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

design

Executive editor Emma Francois cover editor patricia lin Spread editor Alli Kaufman ARt editor MEgan howell Photo editor Brooke Dudek assistant design editors Megan Howell, cate o’Leary, Lindsay Reilly, Abbey Roberts

copy

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

online

podcast editor Jon block

Staff writers

Ben barrett, amanda christovich, Michael Coyne, elizabeth cunniff, nicholas gavio, andrew gutman, christian hallmark, susanna herrmann, Jake Maher, noah nelson, brendan pierce, tyler walsh

staff designers

erin annick, natalia campos, april hyein choi, samantha lee, andrea leng, may li, kyua park, angela qi, morgan trevett

business

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

3

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

read more on georgetownvoice.com From the Archives The Jesuits’ Slaves In February 2007, Kathryn Brand wrote this feature on the history of the Maryland Society of Jesus’ participation in the slave trade during the 19th century. The Jesuits at Georgetown owned slaves for decades before selling them in 1838 to a Louisiana plantation owner in order to cover the struggling University’s growing debts.

Patricia Lin

Correction: The April 8 feature, titled “Soul Searching,” incorrectly stated that the LGBTQ Resource Center was opened in 2000. The Center was opened in 2008. In addition, due to a transcription error, Tom Burnford was quoted as saying that Catholic institutions are places where one can encounter the “written Lord.” His actual wording was “Risen Lord.”

Lilah burke

B-12.00 -- Trim to 10.00Wx11.00D - CMYK - Georgetown

3

EDITORIALS

4

APRIL 22, 2016

Ph.D. Hours Increase is Unfair, Process Must Change

When hours increase, it would seem logical that a rise in pay would follow. For Georgetown’s Ph.D. candidates, however, the events of recent months have strayed from that simple logic.

In late February, Georgetown’s Ph.D. candidates discovered that their maximum employment hours were increasing from 15 to 20 without a proportional increase in their stipends. Furthermore, Ph.D. candidates will no longer be allowed to work additional positions at the University. The Ph.D. candidates did not learn this information through any kind of public announcement, but instead through word of mouth, after the changes were briefly mentioned during a meeting for international Ph.D. candidates.

Feeling that the nature and inadequate publicity of these changes were unfair, members of the Doctoral Students Coalition (DSC) have since started a petition asking Dean Norberto Grzywacz, Dean of the Georgetown University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, to reconsider their implementation. The petition, which has been signed by over 250 students and faculty (about 75 percent of the signees are Ph.D. candidates) as of April 20, 2016, has already had an effect. Dean Grzywacz has agreed to grant a one-year grace period to current Ph.D. candidates, allowing them to continue to hold five hour a week positions during the 2016-2017 academic year.

While this Editorial Board maintains that the postponement is a positive step, it is difficult to see how these proposed changes will do anything other than limit the opportunity of Ph.D. candidates. By taking away their ability to work additional part-time jobs for the University, these changes cut off an extra source of income for these candidates that could be used for expenses ranging from child care to medical bills.

Although the minimum Ph.D. stipend for 2016-2017 is being increased from $26,000 to $27,000, this increase would not make up for the additional five hours of service hours per week a student might have to work, and would

not benefit students currently receiving more than $27,000.

Furthermore, there appear to be no proposed measures to ensure Ph.D. candidates’ hours will actually be capped at 20, as members of the DSC have complained that they often work more than the present cap of 15.

International students are especially affected by these proposed changes, as their visas require that they do not work more than 20 hours a week. While a domestic student could hypothetically seek additional non-university employment, an international student working 20 service hours per week would be prohibited from gaining any additional income or work experience. In an email to the Voice, Dean Grzywacz claimed that around 8 percent of Ph.D. candidates work additional part-time positions for the University and that the proposed changes create “consistency across all Ph.D. programs.”

However, as the case of international students clearly exemplifies, there are clear reasons why part-time employment benefits some students, even if they are a minority. It is unfair to take away this opportunity from these students for the sake of homogeneity.

Perhaps even more concerning than the specific changes in Ph.D. student working requirements is the way in which they were announced. Mentioning the changes in a meeting and allowing the information to spread is an inadequate way of providing information to students, and the Graduate School has still not made an official public announcement detailing the changes.

Dean Grzywacz asserted that the Graduate Student Organization was involved in the discussion stages for the changes in an email to the Voice. But the GSO consists mainly of Masters students rather than Ph.D. candidates,

the group that these changes would affect, Jake Earl, a DSC member, wrote in an email to the Voice. It seems inappropriate to consult with the GSO instead of seeking to consult a better representation of Ph.D. candidates.

If the graduate school had consulted more with Ph.D. candidates before deciding on changes to their service and part time hours, both parties could have avoided their current disagreements and settled any differences without the current uproar. Even if the proposed changes helped Ph.D. candidates, the lack of involvement in the decision-making process and the suddenness of the announcement of the changes made a negative reaction from Ph.D. candidates much more likely.

The discontent of Ph.D. candidates is directed not only at the unfairness and limitations of the changes they face, but also at the closed-doors process through which these decisions were made. Sure, righting the wrongs made in this specific case would be a positive step. But reconsidering the process that led to these mistakes is equally necessary.

There are stark differences between the Potomac River and the Anacostia River. The first, bordering the south section of our campus, is a source of pride for its community. In the warmer months, its waters are littered with boats of all sizes, its banks occupied by patrons wishing the day away. We, at Georgetown, even refer to our school as its “lovely daughter” when singing our “Alma Mater.”

The same pride and ownership have not been widely bestowed on the Anacostia River, which has, at times, been labeled “D.C.’s forgotten river.” Recent efforts to clean the waters have been stymied by ongoing toxic pollution and by the marginalization of the community along its borders.

The Potomac and the Anacostia have faced many of the same problems due to their location in our nation’s capital. For years, the direct pollution into both rivers was staggering. In addition, natural events, like extreme weather, have made stormwater runoff and sewage overflow increasingly pressing concerns.

In the Potomac, these problems have largely been met with solutions. A special drive and governance structure, begun in the ‘60s with the aim of cleaning the river, has been sustained through today. Though this river still faces

challenges relating to pollution, it is certainly in much better shape than it could have been.

The state of the Anacostia River is proof of this.

It never received the same treatment as the Potomac, and thus failed to see similar progress in its levels of pollution. As Uwe Brandes, the founding Executive Director of the Masters Program in Urban and Regional Planning at Georgetown, puts it, the consequence is that today, working to clean up the Anacostia means “combatting an accumulation of impacts and inequality in infrastructure.”

This inequality is a matter of environmental justice, a concept often given lip service, but not widely understood. The Anacostia River’s current state is the product of unjust systemic conditions within our community. In this case, and in many others, the environmental problems in large part arise from discrimination based on race and class. The neighborhood surrounding the Anacostia is largely poor and black. The neighborhood surrounding the Potomac is not.

The term ‘environmental justice’ has a very specific meaning, yet it is sometimes applied incorrectly by well-in-

tentioned individuals or institutions. For example, in 2012, the term was used as a subheading in a University news post regarding the launch of the Environment Initiative, despite the fact that the text of the section had no connection to the fundamental ideas of environmental justice.

While the appropriation of the term is probably not meant to do harm, it dilutes the impact of the concept, especially where it is most apt.

As such, this Editorial Board urges Georgetown students to engage critically with the idea of environmental justice, as it exists in our campus, local, and national community. This is particularly important for us as temporary members of the D.C. community who will not experience much of the future environmental cost of the pollution we create in our time here. Ultimately, our ability to manage and address this cost is predicated on our ability to recognize our fundamental kinship with those affected by our actions, and acknowledge the unfair, unequal distribution of environmental burdens as a problem in and of itself. But until we are able to do this, we have no right to use the term in our public relations dispatches, no matter how good our intentions may be.

Erin Annick

A Tale of Two Rivers: Environmental Injustice in D.C.

4

5

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

Home Runs and Circuses A Life at the Ballpark One of my first memories is from 2001. I was five years old, and it was just a couple of months after 9/11.

I was watching the New York Yankees play the Arizona Diamondbacks in Game 4 of the World Series. In the bottom of the tenth inning, with the score tied 3-3, Derek Jeter came up to bat right as the clock struck midnight on Nov. 1. After a nine-pitch at bat, Jeter sent a 3-2 pitch sailing into the right field stands. He was Mr. November, the Yankees won the game, and my family room was sent into hysterics.

Despite its longtime status as America’s national pastime, baseball has faded in popularity over the past decade. The World Series, the sport’s premier event, has steadily declined in ratings over the past ten years, despite a brief uptick during the most recent Mets-Royals contest.

Baseball games are also getting longer, with the average game length clocking in at 3.13 hours in 2014. If you want any indication that football has supplanted it as America’s favorite sport, just look to the fact that a regular season Sunday Night Football game had higher ratings than Game 5 of the World Series in 2015.

What is to blame for this paradigm shift in America’s taste in sports? I argue that this is not a recent development, but rather a long-standing tendency of mass cultural preference that traces its roots back to the popular Roman concept of “Bread and Circuses.”

Today, we may not have lions or gladiators, but we do have athletes inflicting copious amounts of pain on each other. After all, football’s primary appeal lies in its cathartic qualities. Most viewers do not know what it means to run an Air Coryell system, or what a Cover-2 defense entails, but watching a brutal tackle or violent hit is extremely satisfying, whether or not the viewer wants to admit it. I am certainly as guilty of this as anyone; as much as I like to claim I watch football for the chess match between coaches, there is something incredibly appealing in watching 300-pound men beat each other up every play.

That is not to say that baseball holds a moral high ground over football. Indeed, quite the opposite: baseball’s record is far from spotless. As much as baseball purists and the modern-day MLB would like to sweep the steroid era under the rug, the fact is the steroid era saved baseball in many ways. At the end of the 1980s, interest in baseball had dropped quite significantly. Players turned to doping to try to give themselves an edge. Team and league officials were more than willing to turn a blind eye.

The American people loved watching baseball during this time: baseball games were exciting; high-scoring affairs, and home-run races between Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire transfixed the nation. It was not just the hitting that was exciting. Pitchers improved their performances as well to keep pace with ‘roided-up hitters. More than that, pitchers had character. The Yankees’ Roger Clemens was never afraid of throwing at opposing batters to send a message; Red Sox ace Curt Schilling regularly engaged

in smack talk before big games; his teammate Pedro Martinez became the most hated man in all of New York when he threw Yankee hitting coach Don Zimmer to the ground during the 2003 ALCS. Baseball was highly entertaining, both on and off the field. Low-budget teams like the Oakland Athletics had to turn to unconventional methods to keep pace with financial juggernauts.

Wherever you looked, there was a storyline.

What happened to that excitement? The steroid era unofficially ended in 2005 with the BALCO scandal. The excitement was gone. I watched as several of my formerly favorite players, like Andy Pettite, Roger Clemens, and Alex Rodriguez came under fire for doping. My initial reaction was that it had forever tainted the game, but I soon realized that the issue was slightly more nuanced. Those legends of baseball were taken down by moral crusaders who sought to clean up the game by villainizing players who had been put under a tremendous amount of pressure to succeed.

This article is not to excuse the use of steroids, but rather to offer a rationale for their use and an explanation for baseball’s explosion and subsequent decline in popularity. As hitters quieted down, pitchers became the focus. It was once considered unusual for a team to have an elite pitcher; now it is considered unusual if a team does not have an elite pitcher. The game became, for lack of a better term, boring. With this perceived boredom in mind, audiences turned back to football.

Even if football is capturing the nation’s attention and winning the ratings battle, the negative PR the NFL has had to battle will undoubtedly force changes to the league to protect players. This is certainly a good move. I, as a long time New York Jets fan, find myself unable to fully enjoy football games (not just because the Jets break my heart every season) with the knowledge of the physiological impacts on players.

As football becomes safer, will it lose popularity?

Probably not. The presence of the Super Bowl will keep

Carrying On: Voice Staffers Speak

Sam Lee people at least somewhat interested in the regular season, and the fact that there are only 16 games every year (not including playoffs) makes following a team for the regular season extremely easy. It has become more difficult to follow baseball teams with a similar devoutness, as the 162game marathon that is the regular season makes it easy to fade in and out of keeping track of how your favorite team is doing.

Baseball risks falling into complete irrelevance unless the MLB can figure out a way to speed up games, and football must establish how to protect players without compromising the core appeal of the game, if that is possible. What is clear is that mass audiences will flock to whatever sport offers the simplest entertainment and most compelling off-field storylines. Although Derek Jeter may be gone, I will hopefully be able to enjoy many more Yankee World Series titles. But what do I know? I’m still just the kid sitting on the couch cheering for Jeter.

B-12.00 -- Trim to 10.00Wx11.00D - CMYK - Georgetown

By Graham Piro He is a sophomore in the College.

3

APRIL 22, 2016

6

VOICES

Up in Arms

Pro-Life as more than Anti-Abortion

All too often this campaign season, we hear presidential candidates like Ted Cruz marry the ideas of being pro-gun and pro-life while brushing over the cognitive dissonance that comes with it. How can these two issues go together? Has it never crossed the minds of pro-gun, pro-lifers just how strange of a combination of values they hold? For Christians, who follow a religion in which humans are presumed to be sinners, how can a believer trust that “a good guy with a gun” will always stop a shooter?

But at least one conservative, pro-life Evangelical Christian has raised questions on this issue. Reverend Rob Schenck questioned the compatibility of the NRA’s message and the Christian gospel. The Armor of Light, an acclaimed documentary film, explores his questioning process, which saw him meet with family members of gun violence victims and push the members of his own community to rethink their stances on guns.

The film sheds light on the ways in which gun violence can be considered a moral issue as well as a political one. Rev. Schenck and Lucy McBath, mother of gun violence victim Jordan Davis, are devout Christians who despite disagreeing on many issues (including abortion), ultimately find common ground on the importance of preserving life by preventing gun violence in America.

The reverend’s interpretation of Christianity sees him acknowledge gun violence as a highly relevant life issue.

In an op-ed in The Washington Post, Rev. Schenck outlines how Christianity counters the ideas of the pro-gun movement. He writes, “our commitment to the sanctity of human life demands that we err on the side of reducing threats to human life.” Christ himself, Schenck notes, did not use deadly force in the Bible. Even when he referred to self-defense, Jesus required that his disciples limit the number of weapons they owned.

Considering Georgetown’s hosting of “Life Week” events on campus this week, The Armor of Light pushes an alternative notion of how to fight for life and challenges our preconceived notions of what it means to be “prolife.” So often, “pro-life” equals “anti-abortion,” but could there be other ways to interpret the term? Is it possible that someone can be at once “pro-life,” if they oppose capital punishment, support gun control and social welfare, and identify as “pro-choice” on abortion?

I never thought, as a secular, pro-choice Jewish American, that there were ways I could agree with a devout, pro-life Christian, but hearing about Rev. Schenck’s story made me think about when Pope Francis came to speak in Washington. He quoted the Golden Rule and talked about “our responsibility to protect and defend human

life.” Hearing that and thinking about the pope’s crusade to promote social justice made me realize that there are pro-life issues outside of abortion, ones for which even someone pro-choice on the issue of abortion can find themselves to be “pro-life.”

While the pope and his church are staunchly opposed to abortion, the Pope took a strong stance against gun violence by drawing from his own Christian faith. He called for action. “In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade.”

To be fair, Pope Francis is a Catholic and not an Evangelical, but it seems that the pope and Rev. Schenck have been interpreting the gospel in a similar manner.

The Catholic Church can be considered the largest prolife organization in the world. But like Rev. Schenck, the Catholic Church has realized that there are other life issues other than abortion. Countrary to what people like Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin will make you think, a devout Christian can be truly pro-life and also oppose gun violence.

By Roey Hadar He is a junior in the SFS.

Not so Happy with Happy

Examining Disability Issues in Theater As I sat on the hard plastic of a rigid chair in the auditorium of the Walsh Black Box Theater, watching the twists and turns of Happy unfold before my eyes, I couldn’t help but wonder at the incredible wave of unhappiness that surged through my veins.

For a play that attempts to address the struggles of life and calls our attention to the question of happiness, I was shocked to find the play to be structured on such ignorance and prejudice. At a time when we are working to build an understanding of the disability community and help the world recognize persons with disabilities as fully fledged persons and not pitiable beings shoved to the side of society, it is sad to watch the theatrical production of Happy continue to perpetuate those harmful stereotypes and impede positive progress.

The play is structured around the characters of Eva and Alfred, who are thrown together for an uncomfortable evening. Eva is the new girlfriend of Alfred’s best friend.

Alfred has been happily married to his wife for more than 15 years. Eva announces to the audience that she is entirely unhappy; her brother committed suicide, and she has just escaped an abusive relationship. Alfred appears happy; he is a teacher at a local high school in order to support his wife and his teenage daughter with cerebral palsy.

The two characters hold dramatically different perceptions of happiness, leaving the audience to expect a final monologue that will finally flesh out the truth. By the

2

end of the play, the audience watches Alfred succumb to his frustrations with his life and his resentment of his daughter.

We are left with the understanding that “happiness” is not only unattainable, but that it is also a false idea that we are enticed to believe.

Alfred’s final monologue gives us the impression that life with a disability is impossible and riddled with unhappiness.

But what the play fails to realize is the possibility that it is not the disability that makes Alfred unhappy, but his own inability to recognize and value his life and the people in it. We are made to believe disability is the root cause of Alfred’s misery, which influences the audience’s perception of disability and undermines the progress toward equality and acceptance of disability.

Life with a child with a disability is difficult, but not impossible. Yes, you might have to push them around in a wheelchair; you might have to give up your dream job for something else; and you might even have to change their diaper every night. But life is not meant to be easy. We all face our own challenges. We may not always be happy, but we are capable of rising to the occasion. The play completely undermines the possibility that a family can learn to cope with the extra challenges that come with a handicapped child. A person with a disability is a person, first and foremost, and to reduce a person’s lifestyle to a dark and bleak image is both regressive and prejudiced.

The play paints disability in one, flat, depressing shade of

gray and fails to recognize that there are beautiful bursts of color.

Today we are seeing the disability rights movement make further progress both politically and socially. The “Spread The Word To End The Word” movement has taken off with the help of the media, and persons with disabilities continue to advocate for equal access and opportunities. But we still have not reached true equality. A curtain of ignorance and prejudice separates the disability community from achieving full equality. We must increase dialogue surrounding ability and disability to generate a greater understanding and appreciation of the individual lifestyle of each person.

Yet this play undermines all of this progress by shrugging off the possibility that people with a disability— real people with lives that have the potential to be just as fulfilling as anyone else’s—are inherently less able to be happy. I left the Walsh Black Box Theater in tears, not because the final monologue was so poignant and riveting, but because I was surrounded by an audience who thought that my siblings were incapable of being happy, that I was incapable of being happy with them.

By Emmy Buck She is a senior in the College.

7

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

Contraception Without Deception The Need for Clarity in Sexual Health Health and Education Services (HES) claims that Georgetown adequately provides for students’ sexual health needs. Last year, at a panel on sexual health resources at Georgetown hosted by H*yas for Choice, HES director Carol Day told students that a “prescription is not guaranteed” for birth control pills used for contraception from the Student Health Center (SHC), but oral contraception could be prescribed for “other reasons”. Essentially, this policy means that birth control for contraceptive purposes is theoretically available—but only if you lie. Through an anonymous survey conducted this fall, H*yas for Choice hoped to learn how Georgetown students’ lived experiences with seeking care at the SHC compared to purported services.

Georgetown cloaks sexual health policy in deliberately vague language, leaving students caught in the middle as they struggle—and often fail—to frame their needs in the specific language required to actually access healthcare. In our survey, one student narrated how a sympathetic doctor told her she should state her prescription was for “menstrual reasons” so that “no questions would be asked.” Another respondent reported a nurse telling her, “You should come back to me if you need another prescription … not everyone will prescribe this for you.” Another student was given information on intrauterine devices (IUDs) “in a hushed voice” because their provider “wasn’t supposed to be advising her on this.” These policies encourage giving inaccurate information to your

doctor, an idea fundamentally at odds with the basic principles of healthcare.

Georgetown students face further financial obstacles when caring for their reproductive health. “Although the [health center attendants] had guaranteed several times that the charge would be only the $10 co-pay,” one respondent narrated after a visit for STI testing, “I received a charge of $197 for the lab work that was done … They didn’t let me know the lab work would be an extra charge before they went ahead with it.” The student continued, “There is no cost-effective way to make sure you don’t have STDs, and the student health center is not a solution.” The $200 students must pay for STI testing, and expensive co-pays are just two financial barriers students seeking care face. These basic services must be universally accessible, not just for the classprivileged.

When the SHC persists in sex-negative and ambiguous coverage, students suffer. When students do visit, doctors often use shame to discourage necessary treatment. One student recalled, despite being a “responsible, sexually active young woman,” if she “had ever felt embarrassed about her sexuality,” it was at the SHC because of how staff treated her after disclosing her sexual partner was not her boyfriend.

Another commented that “the whole process felt very hostile.

“Further, trans and gender nonconforming students have reported a lack of sensitivity from the SHC staff, an offensive

and unacceptable behavior from an institution claiming to value care of the whole person.

Georgetown can stop providing confusing and contradictory information to students if SHC clarifies its policies and designates a point person for matters of sexual health and birth control. Students need not waste time meeting with a provider who will refuse them service, and the University ought to provide regular, free STI screenings. Georgetown must provide sensitivity training to healthcare staff to end a culture that sex-shames and mistreats trans and gender nonconforming students.

Until then, Georgetown students have options outside of campus. For birth control purposes, we recommend checking online, as doctors at Planned Parenthood and other facilities offer online consultations, even sending prescriptions in the mail. We stand ready to help students navigate the confusing, dangerous mess that is Georgetown’s current health system, and will continue our advocacy until every Georgetown student has access to the services they need.

By Emily Stephens and Kory Stuer Emily is junior in the SFS and Kory is a freshman in the College.

The Road Less Traveled

Understanding Different Journeys to the Hilltop As I sit in a classroom at Georgetown, my professor inquires, “How many of your high school classmates are sitting in seats like these right now?” Reflecting on years in an established middle-class school system, I am optimistic about those peers being in university chairs, perhaps at in-state colleges. Peers from my early elementary education, on the other hand? I am more doubtful.

Growing up in a rural Idahoan town where agriculture ran the economy, the small population—my town being around 100 people, the actual “town” (i.e. that which is noted on a map) being less than 2,000—was struck by much poverty and inequality. Those who did well on their farms comprised the minute percentage of millionaires; other than that, the region was chronically low-income, the median income falling not far from the poverty line. Just as the schools in my area were the center of the community—interfacing students from wealthy farming families and those from migrant farm families—education has exposed the same inequalities in our nation as a whole.

Some days at an established, prestigious, East Coast institution such as Georgetown, I feel like I fit in with the stereotypical norm of the higher-education clientele. Coming from a solid two-parent household, I have had privileges land in my lap, such as birthright citizenship into this nation, the ease of a natively English-speaking household, and of course the ingrained white privilege. I accept those characteristics as facts

of where I come from, neither to flaunt nor to pity. But after reflecting on the income-disparate environments in which I have lived, I no longer feel like the norm at Georgetown.

My rural elementary school was under Title I classification, meaning it receives federal funding because of the lowincome status of its students and families. Academically, the goals of the school district (comprised of three schools: one elementary, one middle, and one high school) were proficiency and graduation, not necessarily college or opportunity. Raised in an education-centric home, in which reading came shortly after learning to walk and talk, my parents encouraged me by reading to and with me. I ended up at the top of my class, in gifted and talented programs and the like. Elsewhere in the town, there were too many homes without anything to read: no magazine on the table, no book on a shelf, no newspapers or flyers. The interlaced strands of literacy, education, generation, and income manifest in this discussion of income disparity and poverty. On this scale, I transcended the low-income association: my parents were literate, had attended college, decorated our shelves and coffee tables wih word books. Nevertheless, I was not exempt from the associations of low-income; I was among the 6580 percent of people who received free or reduced lunch at school, and I remember when the free breakfast program was implemented, primarily to offer the necessity of a meal to those who came hungry.

In a study group the night following the professor’s

question, we reflected on her intention. I clearly no longer fit the privilege I thought I had. I learned that many of my peers come from affluent, suburban communities of Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maryland that seem so different from my life back at home. Quality education appears to be a given in their circumstances, a norm that my rural hometown severely lacks.

They told me they attended prep schools or private schools and seemed bewildered as to why our professor would ask such a question. My own bewilderment struck me, not toward the professor’s inquiry, but toward my own naïveté of the continual presence of inequality. Flash backs to days at a Title I school reverberated in my mind, to days receiving lunch at school, not even knowing I was getting it through a federal subsidy.

I noticed how the cycle continues—my elementary classmates are certainly not sitting in a college classroom right now, not because they were lazy, or lacked ambition, but because of structural inequalities that predetermine their future. When the cost to attend my university is over double the median income of my small town, pure numbers create obstacles for those trying to achieve the American Dream.

B-12.00 -- Trim to 10.00Wx11.00D - CMYK - Georgetown

By Jordan Hughes She is a sophomore in the College.

3

8

APRIL 22, 2016

A Shared Environment: D.C. and Environmental Justice

By Caitlyn Cobb

Brooke Dudek and Megan Howell

“The hoopla of Earth Day is over. The problems remain. Only time will tell if these demonstrations accomplished anything.”

46 years ago, “the most trusted man in America,” NBC news anchor Walter Cronkite, spoke soberly to the country at the dawn of a decade of new environmental consciousness and action. This movement continues today, even as the scale of human impacts on the environment itself continues to grow exponentially. NASA has said that global warming is quite literally changing how the earth moves on its axis. Environmental consciousness, like the environment itself, has not been static since that first Earth Day. The environmental justice movement has developed over the past several decades, critiquing mainstream environmentalism. The movement focuses on the disproportionate impact of environmental harm in low-income communities and communities of color. It grew out of the struggle of individual communities and linked the civil rights movement with the environmental movement.

There is a lot that can go unobserved from the view on the Hilltop. Using environmental justice as a lens to look at D.C. today paints a different picture of the city than what many are used to seeing.

A Brief History of Environmental Justice

There are various ways to understand the term environmental justice: academically, legally, politically, or practically. In all cases, environmental justice deals with both race and class.

A foundational claim, supported by a landmark study, “Toxic Waste and Race in the United States,” is that hazardous facilities are disproportionately located in low-income communities and communities of color, and that race is a better predictor of their location than class.

Mike Ewall, founder and director of the Energy Justice Network, writes that hypothetically speaking, this means that in the U.S. a low-income, white community is less likely to encounter an environmentally hazardous facility than a middle-class, black community.

Studies since have shown that this holds true for other environmental issues as well, such as air pollution. These claims are especially relevant in the D.C. metro area, which is one of the most segregated in the U.S..

8

Most of the definition of environmental justice accepted among activists today was established in the 17 principles of environmental justice. These were adopted in 1991 by the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit in Washington.

Since then, the concept has grown within public and political consciousness. President Clinton signed an Executive Order on Environmental Justice in 1994, and an Office of Environmental Justice was created within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) soon after.

With the lead crisis in Flint, Michigan, the words “environmental racism” have been used in the popular media with increasing frequency, and both Democratic presidential candidates include environmental justice in their plans and platforms.

Talking Past Each Other

It is clear that more people are using the phrase “environmental justice.” However, some scholars and activists doubt that the concept is understood in the same way by everyone who does.

“One thing that I think might make a difference in terms of how people approach the issue is whether the focus is environment or whether justice is the primary motivation,” said Georgetown sociology professor Yuki Kato. One approach is to focus on the environment, and tangible ways to improve it (air, water, soil quality, etc.). Another is to see the environment—inclusive of everywhere people live, learn, work, pray, and play—as just another aspect of social justice.

The second perspective is the one taken by many environmental activists and scholars, such as Michael Heiman, a professor emeritus in Environmental Studies and Geography at Dickinson College, who says we should view cases of environmental injustice and racism as a single portion of a spectrum of injustices resulting from an unjust and racist system. There are plenty of other symptoms—The New York Times, for example, found that only 8.7 percent of the most powerful people in America today are minorities.

Now that the term environmental justice is being used more and more outside of the traditional movement, there is sometimes confusion between the two perspectives that Kato defined. Using Flint as an example, Kato explained that while

9

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

water quality was the tangible environmental issue, it was not what residents are most upset about.

“It’s really what water represents,” said Kato. “[It’s] about the neglect, about the disrespect for people, about the way the whole city functions. And so in a way you can give them clean water, but that’s not the problem.”

Today, Flint is the example on everyone’s mind of both environmental racism and the tangible health impacts of lead poisoning. According to Laura Anderko, a professor in the School of Nursing and Health Studies who specializes in environmental health, problems in infrastructure lead to these crises nationwide, including in D.C. from 2000 to 2004 and in schools in Newark, New Jersey today.

Anderko also emphasizes the systematic problems that give rise to the Flints of today. She sees them as products of systemic social injustice in combination with practical problems of national infrastructure. “Racism is part of our societal fabric ...” said Anderko. “Some communities are seen as more disposable.”

Translating this understanding to D.C., a city with the fourth highest income inequality in the nation, rampant inequality in housing and education, and severe black-white segregation, environmental injustices fit into a range of social justice concerns.

The Major Influences on Environmental Justice in D.C.

The big categories of environmental justice concerns are the patterns of waste management and hazardous sites in the District as well as the health of the Anacostia River, among other concerns. These “other” concerns overlap with aspects of D.C. such as housing inequality or broader infrastructure which aren’t traditionally considered environmental. The key agents who exercise influence are federal, state, and city government; mainstream environmental groups, environmental justice activists, and impacted communities. They define the way the landscape of environmental justice in D.C. can change, for better or for worse.

In D.C., government agents include the EPA Region 3, the D.C. Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE), and the Mayor’s office.

The EPA’s Region 3 encompasses the D.C. area, and runs the region’s EPA environmental justice initiatives. An EPA Region 3 project report presented in May 2010 identified a range of community concerns including lead exposure, children’s health, hazardous facilities, subsistence fishing, green jobs, and green economy. Since then, three workgroups were set up, focusing on these concerns and developing projects in specific parts of D.C. For example, the Children’s Environmental Health Workgroup is working on addressing environmental health and safety in Ward 8 through a healthy homes, schools, and child care program.

Beyond this, federal legislation makes the EPA responsible for the cleanup of various types of contaminated sites, such as brownfield sites and Superfund sites (like the Navy Yard in D.C.). These can impact the health of surrounding communities.

In D.C., much of the EPA’s action is done in collaboration with local government, including the DOEE. The DOEE and the Mayor’s office helps to define local legislation that can decide issues with environmental justice implications, like what waste disposal facilities can go where.

Environmental justice activism in D.C. stretches from mainstream groups to grassroots organizations to local activists and communities. Mainstream environmental groups, particularly well-established and politically influential groups, often fit into the landscape tangentially.

The Sierra Club, for example, despite being among the attendees to the 1991 Summit, spans the breadth of the mainstream environmental movement in both its work and its history. In the last couple years, the Sierra Club D.C. Chapter has been taking steps to incorporate environmental justice structurally, and the Chapter has been involved in several local and city-wide fights within environmental justice.

Other environmental groups are more focused on environmental justice specifically. The Energy Justice Network’s actions in D.C. include focuses on waste management and hazardous siting. Anacostia River Keepers works to stop the impacts of toxins and polluted runoff on the health of the Anacostia River and the surrounding neighborhoods. Many local groups intersect on the same environmental justice issues, such as the well-being of the Anacostia River and surrounding neighborhoods, although each has a varying degree of focus on the environment versus social justice.

Residents of affected communities are the ones who best understand the problems at hand, and they have been the drivers of the environmental justice movement. In D.C., as in the nation, community members such as Michelle Bundy have become activists for their community. Bundy has spoken on behalf of her community in protest of a trash transfer station on Benning Road. Representatives of Advisory Neighborhood Committees (ANCs), the most fundamental unit of local government, can also serve as community leaders. ANC representative Rhonda Hamilton from Ward 6, for example, is currently fighting for environmental

justice for her community, which is threatened by plans to build a new D.C. United soccer stadium on a contaminated site at Buzzards Point.

These different agents tend to intersect. According to Hamilton, the Sierra Club has been present and involved in the same fights as her communities, as has the Energy Justice Network. The fact that these fights are often about how the city or the federal government goes about making decisions and informing impacted communities means government is implicitly involved. D.C.’s siting of hazardous waste and energy facilities exemplifies these intersections.

A Community Perspective on Environmental Justice

Hamilton underscored the impact of environmental hazards on children’s health and well-being at an event hosted by Capitol Innovations on Environmental Racism.

“It is environmental racism. It’s purposely done. And people who are in these communities, they’re breathing the air every day. And the air doesn’t stop.”

Hamilton’s work with the ANC is organizing the community and bringing the problems her community is facing to city government.

“So we reach out to the council, and we reach out to the mayor to ask them to do more for the community. But it’s still not enough that’s being done. There’s still a lot of families and a lot of individuals that are suffering behind these environmental hazards,” said Hamilton.

Community involvement defines the fight. “When you think about the environment it’s like, ‘whose fight is this’ a lot of times, and it has to be our fight, it has to be united communities,” said Hamilton. People’s concern for their children’s well-being directly applies to environmental concerns. Families work hard to prevent their children from going to school hungry so that they can perform well.

“They can’t do well in school if they’re hungry—I think the same can also be said for the environment …” said Hamilton. “And if you go outside and the air that you breathe is contaminated, that’s an unhealthy environment. So how does a child live in an unhealthy environment and be able to go to school and perform as they’re expected to perform?”

Where Is “Away”? D.C.’s Environmental Racism in Waste and Energy

Various city-wide influences converge to define what it means to throw something “away” in D.C. The Sustainable D.C. plan, originally put forward by D.C. Mayor Gray, began in 2012, setting goals to make D.C. the “healthiest, greenest, and most livable city in the United States” by 2032. This includes a goal for zero waste by 2032. A big concern for activists like Ewall is that this plan defined “zero waste” as “zero waste to landfills.”

The problem is that this means incinerators could contribute to the sustainability goal, despite the impact they have on the environment and local communities through the pollution and toxins they release. Both the Energy Justice Network and the Sierra Club have been

The Anacostia River Bridge is located in Washington, D.C.

B-12.00 -- Trim to 10.00Wx11.00D - CMYK - Georgetown

Wikimedia Commons

9

10

APRIL 22, 2016

pushing to change this classification and fight specific contracts that place incinerators in environmental justice communities. On July 14, 2014, D.C. passed a new piece of legislation that prioritized waste disposal in a new way classifying incinerators on the same level as landfills.

D.C.’s hazardous facilities are not isolated within the District. They impact surrounding communities as well. The environmental injustice these communities face make up some of the big battles fought by groups like the Energy Justice Network.

An example of D.C.’s impacts beyond district lines is Prince George’s County, Md., which Ewall jokingly calls “Ward 9,” because of the number of Washingtonians being pushed there by gentrification. According to Ewall, these patterns of gentrification in D.C. match up with the movement of hazardous energy facilities out of D.C. “We have some of the worst gentrification in the country. Three of the five most whitening zip codes in the country are right down the middle of D.C.,” said Ewall.

In 2013, all but one of the three fossil fuel power plants in D.C. were shut down, followed by a proposal to open three new gas-fired power plants in Prince George’s County, in addition to two coal and gas power plants already there. This would, according to Ewall, create one of the worst clusters of fossil fuel plants in the country.

“So, gentrify the areas where the power plants used to be in the Beltway, and then push the black people out of those areas, and then push the power plants out to where they’re going. That just paints such an awful picture but that’s what’s going on,” said Ewall.

This means some of the D.C. environmental justice problems the Energy Justice Network is working on are actually outside D.C., helping communities to fight the latest of these power plant proposals.

“That’s the heart of environmental justice: communities of color in particular but also low income communities, where they’re not the same, are disproportionately impacted by these toxic industries,” said Ewall. “That’s where the movement grew out of.”

Combatting an Unjust History

Efforts to clean up the Anacostia River and protect surrounding neighborhoods are fairly numerous across D.C., and the EPA focuses some of its Region 3 efforts in Wards 7 and 8. At first glance, though, it’s easy to ask why the Anacostia River is such a focus of rehabilitation efforts when many of the environmental concerns it faces—stormwater runoff, sewage overflow, and pollution—are shared with the Potomac River.

According to Uwe Brandes, the founding Executive Director of the Masters Program in Urban and Regional Planning at Georgetown University, the historical pattern of injustice around the Anacostia River has had accumulating impacts that continue today. Any comparison of the Potomac and the Anacostia rivers, which both have significant environmental problems, has to take this into account.

According to Brandes, in the late 1960s, a special governance structure was created to clean the Potomac River, which yielded great progress. “In the context of the city, that was great,” said Brandes. But no equal or sustained effort was made to clean the Anacostia. The consequence is that today, working to clean up the Anacostia means combatting an accumulation of inequalities in infrastructure.

Initiatives to revitalize the Anacostia River fall into a spectrum of efforts aimed at reinvigorating the communities east of the river, which despite a rich cultural history are currently underserved. According to Brandes, today there is actually more public investment on the east side of D.C. than on the west side, which is changing the situation in Anacostia.

“I see environment as inclusive of the built environment. So this isn’t just about trees. It’s about trees and buildings and communities and land use, and how uses like transitional housing are planned and located across the city,” said Brandes.

This definition brings a lot of city projects, from the sewage system to homeless shelters, into the environmental justice perspective. Moreover, there are concrete ways in which environmental justice features in urban planning processes. The EPA, for example, uses its environmental justice framework to screen projects like these to ensure that there are no disproportionate costs for low income or minority communities.

“There is a legal aspect to this which is incredibly important,” said Brandes.

Responsibility and Justice

There are two main concerns regarding individual action on environmental justice issues. The first is the danger of obscuring the responsibility of systemwide agents by focusing on individual actions as solutions to environmental and social problems.

10

The second is the danger of only treating the symptoms of a system whose normal, everyday function is driving the injustice and degradation.

According to Ewall, corporate-funded ad campaigns with themes that emphasize individual environmentalist actions like recycling and personal consumption are used to create a sense of individual responsibility that distracts from corporate responsibility.

Ewall says that these shift the blame, “making us think that we as individuals are not only the ones responsible for the social problems but are also the solution of social problems … so that you blame yourself and say, ‘I’m the cause of litter. I just need to pick up after myself, not blame McDonald’s for the packaging.’”

Ewall references the 17 environmental justice principles to underscore his point—only the very last one talks about individual action. Rather, that definition of environmental justice focuses on protecting communities from the actions of larger social entities and empowering communities classed by corporations as the path of least resistance, not on changing individual lifestyles in order to compensate for the functioning of society.

What Can Be Done

If emphasis on individual responsibility obscures the real problem, what can individuals do? Different people who have engaged with environmental justice both in and beyond D.C. have concrete expressions of these concerns when asked ‘what can we—as students, as a university, as Georgetown residents, as D.C. residents—do?’

Audrey Stewart, director of Georgetown’s Office of Sustainability, says that Georgetown takes steps to do so through a holistic approach of sustainability initiatives and other forms of engagement.

“We are actively working to help provide a healthier and more sustainable environment for all members of our local and global communities,” wrote Stewart in an email to the Voice, referring to Georgetown’s moves toward reducing stormwater runoff as an example. According to Stewart, this is also exemplified in the University’s in other ways, through the research, teaching, and engagement of faculty and students.

“I think a lot of environmental groups at Georgetown are becoming increasingly aware that [environmental justice] issues are an inherent part of our mission, even if we don’t realize it ...” wrote Caroline James (COL ‘16), former GUSA Secretary for Sustainability Georgetown and a member of GU Fossil Free, in an email to the Voice.

“Race, gender, and socioeconomic issues inevitably have something to do with the environmental issue at hand.”

Kato believes that the University as an institution can be the place for important conversations to happen about what environmental justice, such as how to prevent cases in which external activists speak for communities rather than letting them speak, or about the dangers of co-opting environmental justice language in mainstream sectors.

“I think that is really where you can harness those conversations, but still letting activism lead the way into conversation. Because then that really brings out ‘what the issue is’ as it’s understood on the ground,” said Kato.

Tyler Tynes, a journalist with the Huffington Post who spoke at a Georgetown event titled “Environmental Racism in the United States and Occupied Palestinian Territories” about the crisis in Flint, which he covered with fellow journalist Julia Craven, answered decisively. “You’ve got to care. You’ve just got to care.”

Craven emphasized that caring is more than a reflex response, and noted the privileged position that wealthy, predominantly white communities like Georgetown have. “It’s not just sending water bottles or posting a Facebook status, like trying to raise awareness. That’s important, awareness is important. But it’s actually combatting the privilege that you have.”

Hamilton believes that different communities in D.C., from her Ward 6 neighborhood to Georgetown, ultimately share our environments and therefore share the fights that her community faces. “Some communities feel like they may not have these hazards that we have in our communities, but because of our environment we are all connected. We all breathe the same air.”

Even before our first Earth Day—almost exactly seven years before, on April 16, 1963—Martin Luther King Jr. encapsulated the concerns of the environmental justice in a single line. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Lingering social inequalities in the District take on greater clarity through the lens of environmental justice. Much progress has been made since King wrote those words, yet much work remains to ensure the well-being of the ground not far from the podium where he once dreamt of a more just Earth.

11

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

Doctoral Students Organize Against Increased Working Hours Without Proportional Rise in Pay The Doctoral Students Coalition (DSC) began to circulate a petition on March 29 asking that Norberto Grzywacz, Dean of the the Georgetown University Graduate School, postpone and reconsider changes to the school’s policy for doctoral students’ stipends and employment. The DSC claims that these changes were made without its approval or foreknowledge, and will effectively require doctoral students to work more hours for a stipend that is not commensurately larger.

Under the current policy regarding doctoral students’ stipends, doctoral students are expected to work an average of 15 hours a week for the University to receive a stipend.

They may take on an additional part-time job for the University for five hours a week.

The changes to this system require doctoral students to work up to 20 hours a week, and remove the option of taking on another part-time job with the University.

Many members of the DSC are concerned about the consequences of this new policy. According to their statement, the changes could lead to a 33.3 percent increase in working hours with only a 3.8 percent minimum increase in stipend. For the coming academic year, the minimum stipend has increased from $26,000 to $27,000 per year, according to Dean Grzywacz.

“Essentially, grad students are either getting an increase in hours without a proportional pay increase, or (if losing a five hour a week job), receiving a pay cut without a reduction in hours worked,” Deidre Nelms, doctoral student and member of the DSC, wrote in an email to the Voice. “This is unacceptable, and in any workplace this policy would be described as exploitative.” Furthermore, the DSC claims that of the top 30 universities in the U.S., Georgetown is the only one at which guaranteed stipends are lower than 90 percent of the living wage in the University’s zip code.

Dean Grzywacz defended the new prohibition on part-time jobs for doctoral students, maintaining that eliminating this type of employment encouraged doctoral students to devote more attention to their required Assistantships. “Ph.D. students gain experience in skills like teaching, research and writing during their Assistantships,” Grzywacz wrote in an email to the Voice. “By prohibiting [additional] part-time work at Georgetown University, students can focus on gaining skills necessary for obtaining their Ph.D.” The DSC acknowledged the value of gaining relevant experience through required on-campus Assistantships, which are now all that are available, but maintained the importance of part-time employment as well. “[The emphasis on on-campus jobs] does nothing to address the ability to work on campus for those who genuinely need money,” wrote several doctoral students and DSC members in a collaborative statement to the Voice.

The changes will be especially consequential for international doctoral students, who are allowed to work a maximum of 20 hours per week due to the stipulations of their visas. The entirety of their hours must now be spent on their Assistantships, rather than at an optional part-time job to generate income or off-campus at a job relevant to their theses.

Dean Grzywacz argued for the minimal importance of these part-time jobs. In his email to the Voice, he wrote that only 8 percent of doctoral students pursued part-time employment during the 2015 fall semester. Dean Grzywacz added that doctoral students are students first, and employees second. “Their responsibility and focus should be on their education, and any service provided to the institution should be connected to their education and completion of their degree requirements,” he said.

The DSC contests their categorization as students before workers and added that even if, as Dean Grzywacz wrote, only 8 percent of doctoral students were to take part-time employment, it does not follow that the opportunity to work should be taken away.

By Jake Maher

Dean Grzywacz also wrote that the changes would not have a large impact on the total number of hours doctoral students are expected to work. He wrote that, although doctoral students may potentially work up to 20 hours a week under the new changes, depending on the needs of their department, it may not be necessary to reach this limit.

However, the DSC argued in its statement that while the current limit of hours per week is nominally 15, many doctoral students commonly work more than 15 hours, as there is no mechanism to enforce this limit. With the hour requirement increased but no enforcement mechanism proposed, the DSC anticipates that doctoral students will now work more than the required 20 hours per week.

Members of the DSC have also criticized Dean Grzywacz and the administration for failing to adequately publicize the changes. An international doctoral student informed the DSC of the changes in late February after he or she was mentioned briefly in a meeting of only international doctoral students. At the time, no other doctoral students had been notified, and many faculty members were unaware, according to Hailey Huget, member of the DSC. “Even if the changes can be rationalized in a way that is entirely coherent, cohesive, and even convincing, they have not been, at least not publicly. And I think that’s what really bothers people,” said Benjamin Feldman, member of the DSC. The DSC is further concerned that doctoral students were not properly involved in the decision-making process which arrived at these changes. “[The changes] seem to have been made unilaterally, without input from graduate students or faculty,” Nelms wrote.

Dean Grzywacz, however, maintains that doctoral students were appropriately represented in the decision to make these changes. Graduate students were involved through the Graduate Student Organization (GSO), he wrote, which represents graduate students on the Graduate Executive Committee (Grad ExCo). The Grad ExCo and several other administrative bodies were involved in discussions for two years leading up to the decision, according to Dean Grzywacz.

He added that doctoral students’ representation via the GSO on the Grad ExCo was limited, because the GSO has in recent years come to be dominated by Masters’ students. “In our opinion, consulting the GSO is not equivalent to consulting the parties that will be impacted by the change,” Jake Earl, a DSC member, wrote in an email to the Voice.

Though the petition directly calls for the changes to be postponed until the 20162017 academic year, this change had already been put in place without DSC’s knowledge at the time of the writing of the petition. “[A]fter listening to faculty within our Ph.D. programs and student feedback, and recognizing the impact this may have on them during the 2016-2017 academic year, we have decided to allow a one-year grace period,” Grzywacz wrote in an email to the Voice.

The DSC welcomed this adjustment. “Ultimately, the delay of one year is an essential first step, allowing students who now need to find new apartments and make new childcare arrangements some time to do so,” wrote the DSC in its statement to the Voice.

However, the DSC continues to advocate for the petition’s other demand and the reconsideration of the changes themselves. The petition’s support is growing. As of April 18, it had received 257 signatures, of which 75 percent were doctoral students, 5 percent were faculty, and the remaining 20 percent were a mixture of undergraduate students, staff, and Master’s degree students, according to Nelms. Approximately 27 percent of the 726 doctoral students at Georgetown had signed the petition as of April 18. The DSC hopes to present the petition to Dean Grzywacz by the end of the 2016 spring semester.

B-12.00 -- Trim to 10.00Wx11.00D - CMYK - Georgetown

11

APRIL 22, 2016

up ital O

The Capital One Cup is an annual ranking of the best Division 1 men’s and women’s college athletics programs in the country.

ne

12

2011-12 Men’s Rank: Unranked Women’s Rank: 32

Ca C p

Under Review: Looking Back on a Year of Georgetown Athletics

2015-16 was a tumultuous year for Georgetown athletics, as it saw both record-breaking successes and unexpected troubles. Throughout it all, from the field to the court to the track, the Voice has sought to provide the Georgetown community with an authentic take on sports on the Hilltop. With the spring teams entering their final stretch of games and meets, the Voice has compiled a list of some of the most memorable storylines from this year in Georgetown athletics.

Biggest Surprise The Georgetown women’s basketball team ended its 2014-15 season with a 4-27 (2-16 Big East) record, and a loss in the opening round of the Big East tournament.

Late in the regular season, after a loss to Xavier, then-freshman guard Dorothy Adomako, in a moment of prescience, predicted, “I think we’re going to get better, and things are going to be better from here on out.”

And they did.

With a year of head coaching experience for the Hoyas under her belt, Coach Natasha Adair was eager to help the team get back on track in 2015-16. Entering the season, Georgetown added freshman guard Dionna White, freshman center Jodi-Marie Ramil, guard Mykia Jones, a transfer junior from Wake Forest University, and guard Jasmine Jackson, a transfer graduate student from George Mason University. These additions, as well as the continued growth of Adomako and junior forward Faith Woodard, sparked the Hoyas early in the season.

Just six games into their 2015-16 campaign, the team had already eclipsed their win total from the previous season.

Georgetown ended the season with a 16-14 (9-9 Big East) record, a Big East tournament quarterfinal appearance, and an NIT bid. This drastic turnaround was the first year in which the team registered a winning record since 2011-12.

While last season was characterized by loss and disappointment, 2015-16 was characterized by grittiness and fight, as the Hoyas notched several wins after battling back from halftime deficits. The team further demonstrated its toughness on the boards and in the backcourt, leading the Big East in rebounding and opponent’s field goal percentage.

The Hoyas look to further improve and continue their winning ways in the upcoming season.

“We found a way to win, and at the end of the day, that’s the ultimate goal,” said Adair. “You see your team get better; you see them execute the plan. I’m very proud of them.”

By Alex Lewontin

Biggest Disappointment The Georgetown men’s basketball team finished the 2015-2016 season at 15-18, and recorded its lowest winning percentage (.454) in over 40 years. The last time the team finished under .455, after the 1971-72 season, was the year before the beginning of John Thompson Jr.’s tenure as head coach and seven years before the creation of the original Big East Conference.

After the 2014-2015 season, in which the Hoyas earned a 4-seed in the NCAA Tournament, the Blue and Gray were projected by most sports outlets to return to the postseason. Yet, after finishing the season with a losing record, the Hoyas were ineligible for the NIT and missed out on all postseason play for the first time since the 2003-04 season, the last year of Craig Esherick’s tenure as head coach.

After beginning the season with a loss to Radford, a team that was ranked No. 191 in the country according to RPI, the Hoyas lost to three more teams with an RPI of 100 or worse. For reference, during the 2014-15 season, the Hoyas’ worst loss was to a St. John’s team rated No. 44 according to RPI.

12

Despite this historically poor season, Georgetown has publicly supported Head Coach John Thompson III. In an email to the Voice, Senior Director for Communications Rachel Pugh wrote that President John DeGioia looks forward to “supporting Coach Thompson in his leadership of the team next year.”

The 2015-16 season was disheartening to many, including seniors D’Vauntes Smith-Rivera and Bradley Hayes, whose tenure with the Blue and Gray concluded with an 81-67 loss to Villanova in the Big East Tournament.

“You feel bad as a coach,” said Coach Thompson after the loss. “You wish it could end differently for these guys because of all they’ve given for me, and for Georgetown.”

By Chris Almeida

Best Team Entering the 2015 season, expectations for the Georgetown men’s soccer team were as high as they had ever been. The team was ranked No. 3 in the preseason NSCAA coaches poll, and many believed the Hoyas would remain a title contender throughout the year.

Despite a slow start to the season in which the team failed to score a goal in its first three games and dealt with injuries to key contributors, the Hoyas were able to rebound and meet their high, preseason expectations. A 3-1 victory in Sept. 4 over then top-ranked UCLA at home began what would evolve into the longest undefeated streak in program history.

During the groundbreaking 18-game streak, the Blue and Gray also set program records for consecutive wins (14) and consecutive shutouts (6) in a season. For the first time since 2010, Georgetown earned the Big East regular season championship outright by winning all nine conference games.

The crowning jewel of the season came on Nov. 15, when the Hoyas captured their first Big East Tournament Championship in stunning fashion, as junior striker Alex Muyl scored a game-winning goal with just under three minutes remaining in double overtime to secure the title.

While the most successful regular season in school history ended abruptly with a penalty kick defeat at the hands of Boston College in the third-round of the NCAA Tournament, the team further solidified its place in the history books when six players were signed or drafted by MLS teams.

In a January interview with the Voice, Head Coach Brian Wiese said, “With the schedule we play, to go undefeated in the Big East, 9-0, win the Big East tournament … to realize those goals, and to do it the way we did it was just really special. It was a lot of fun.”

By Tyler Pearre

Coach of the Year When Natasha Adair became the head coach of the women’s basketball team in the spring of 2014, it was not her first time coming to the Hilltop. In her first stint with the Hoyas, when she served as an assistant coach from 1998-2004, she mentored future WNBA All-Star Rebekkah Brunson. This time around, however, Adair would take charge of the whole program, and sought to lead the team back to Big East and national prominence.

13

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

2012-13 Men’s Rank: 18 Women’s Rank: 50

2013-14 Men’s Rank: 87 Women’s Rank: 59

2014-15 Men’s Rank: 40 Women’s Rank: 56

The 2015-16 season was Adair’s second as head coach at Georgetown.

While the Hoyas struggled in her first year, managing just four wins to their 27 losses, Adair led a quick turnaround. This season, the Hoyas had 16 wins and made it to the Women’s NIT, where they lost by just two points in the first round against Rutgers. The season featured road wins over conference rivals Villanova and Providence and a thrilling win at home against Marquette. The future looks bright for the Hoyas under Adair, who has a strong upcoming recruiting class.

Off the court, Adair has just as powerful a presence on the Hilltop. Last April, the coach was honored with the 2015 “Standard of Living” Community

2015-16 Men’s Rank: 35 Women’s Rank: 57

Award, which recognized her commitment to service within the District. Adair frequently leads the Hoyas in service events throughout the greater D.C. area.

She recently spoke at the 2016 OWN IT Summit, where she was part of a breakout session on Women in Sports, saying to women, “make sure you have a voice, and that your voice is heard.”

Adair has proven to be an impactful addition to the Georgetown athletics community, promoting a positive message to the whole campus. Even after watching her team lose by two points in postseason play, Coach Adair tweeted out, “So proud of this group! We accomplished so much this season. Sad to see it end but very excited about our FUTURE.”

B-12.00 -- Trim to 10.00Wx11.00D - CMYK - Georgetown

By Chris Dunn

13

APRIL 22, 2016

LEISURE

14

A Tropical, Playful Twelfth Night Delights At the Gonda Theatre

By Amy Guay

The cast of Twelfth Night performs on stage at Gonda Theatre

L

ightning and rain thunders through Gonda Theatre. Nona Johnson (COL ‘17) and Alex Yurcaba (COL ‘18), playing twins Viola and Sebastian respectively, spin wildly in the midst of the chaos. Suddenly the latter falls, seemingly dead, into a built-in pool of water. So begins Twelfth Night, a collaboration between the Theater and Performance Studies Program and Black Theater Ensemble that reimagines the Shakespearean comedy with colorful set pieces, dance offs, and an exciting subversion of gender and race fit for a play of misplaced love and mistaken identities.

Directed by the Chair of the Department of Performing Arts, Prof. Maya Roth, Twelfth Night’s Caribbean locale lends itself to intriguing explorations of culture and diversity that function as the antithesis to traditional, stuffy Shakespearean theater. The set complements this vivid update; the aforementioned water on stage sits in sleek wading pools and lights bathe the stage in blues and reds, subtle manifestations of the actors’ emotions. The bright color palate and watery allusions—for example, the beautiful stained glass piece hung in the background—contribute to this new mystique. It is in this beatboxing, pluralistic dukedom of Illyria that Viola disguises herself as the young man Cesario and finds herself the star of miscommunications and love triangles gone awry.

Perhaps Prof. Roth’s most obvious nod to modernity is her seamless inclusion of music.

Taking a cue from the play’s famous first line, guitar strings, piano keys, and saxophone riffs abound while everything from “Stand By Me” to “The Pink Panther Theme Song” is fair game. These songs are usually sung acapella by the play’s two Festes, played by the hilarious Mar Cox (COL ‘16) and Olivia Duff (COL ‘16). The decision to split the fool character between two actors is just one of many risks that pays off in dividends, resulting in an amusing dynamic and allowing for some beautiful harmonizations.

14

Caroline Desantis

The entire cast is superb, from the gravitas emanating from Caleb Lewis (COL ‘16) as Duke Orsino, to the exquisitely expressive Amanda Wiese (COL ‘16) as Maria, the gentlewoman for Maddie Kelley’s (COL ‘16) countess Olivia. Gliding across the stage in a brocade skirt with an imposing slit, Kelley maintains her regal poise while simultaneously entreating Cesario or scolding Ali Coppersmith’s (COL ‘17) convivial Sir Toby. She deftly evokes vulnerability, giddy yearning, or an imperious hauteur when the situation warrants.

Pairing effortless postures of lethargy with a wrinkled boat cap, Coppersmith epitomizes island escapism and man-child revelry. The tricky Shakespearean dialogue percolates from him comfortably as he pals around with Michaela Farrell’s (COL ‘18) spirited Fabian and Charlie Trepany’s (COL ‘19) rich Sir Andrew. Trepany is a force of kinetic energy, ricocheting around the stage and kicking his legs to Rockette-level heights. Clashing with these comedic ruffians is Alec Meguid (COL ‘17), who delights as Olivia’s snobby steward Malvolio. Although he is often seen bristling rigidly at the antics of Sir Toby and Co., Meguid commands a range of feeling—from heartbreaking hope to distraught confusion. His stiff carriage and pompous accent add to the fun.

Having sailed through school without having read the play nor having seen She’s The Man, I followed the plot easily, thanks to the actors’ masterful handling of the script. Prof. Roth’s vision strikes the perfect balance between faithful and subversive, emphasizing the play’s comedic genius by keeping its themes fresh for a contemporary audience. While I initially found the burst of song and dance that erupted at the play’s beginning to be bewildering, its infectious energy soon won me over. This is a Shakespearean comedy as it should be performed: joyfully.

15

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

Shallow Sentiments, Sincere Music:

By Caitlin Mannering

As Duran Duran streams from an old television set, The Cure crackles from record players, and cigarettes dangle from the lips of every Irish schoolboy, the setting for Sing Street comes into focus: Dublin, 1985. Music was big, and hair was even bigger. Director John Carney’s (Once, Begin Again) newest music-themed film explores the burgeoning music video industry in the ‘80s and its effects on the young and in love in Ireland.

Part coming-of-age story and part musical, the film follows fifteen-year-old Conor (Ferdia Walsh-Peelo) as he navigates the troubles of adjusting to a new school in the face of his parents’ seemingly imminent divorce. To distract himself from the bullies and harsh schoolmasters, Conor tries to get the attention of the gorgeous Raphina (Lucy Boynton) by asking her to star in the music video of his non-existent band. After scrambling to assemble a ragtag bunch of musicians, the band gives their first attempt at what turns out to be a both awkward and hilarious music video.

Walsh-Peelo does a remarkable job capturing Conor’s transition from a timid schoolboy to a confident and creative artist, with his initial trepidation giving way to a willingness to take firm control of his life. Boynton’s Raphina works

surprisingly well with Walsh-Peelo’s Conor, given what seemed at first to be an awkward coupling. Raphina— sophisticated, beautiful, and mature—seems to belong with anyone but the gawky Catholic schoolboy. However, as Conor grows into himself and as Raphina is able to strip away the layers of makeup and indifference she has piled up over the years, their relationship grows into something both sweet and natural.

The most important relationship in the movie by far is Conor’s relationship with his older brother Brendan (Jack Reynor). Reynor slips easily into the role of protective older brother. From lending Conor records to listen to as “homework” to distracting him during their parents’ screaming matches, Brendan’s love for his younger brother is apparent. Brendan’s endless support for Conor, despite his frustrations over his own shortcomings, makes their relationship the most sincere in the movie.

Director John Carney has created a movie that charms yet lacks any true depth. We hear about the death of Raphina’s father and the manic-depressive disorder of her mother, but we never really dig deeper into these issues or find out how Raphina has coped with them over the years.

Despite failing to expand on the more serious issues in the

film, Carney’s inclusion of musical interludes adds another layer of depth to the film. Carney succeeds through crowdpleasing numbers such as “Girls” and “Brown Shoes,” and more poignant tunes like “To Find You.” Scenes in which Conor and his best friend Eamon (Mark McKenna) scramble to write each song whenever inspiration strikes possess both the innocence and the creativity evident in childhood. Moments in which Conor is truly immersed in the music allow him to step away from the troubles of his own life, even if only a short time before he crashes back into reality.

Despite a somewhat unrealistic ending, Sing Street triumphs in taking us back to a different time. The film is steeped in nostalgia without being overwhelmed by it. Although the plot is anything but original, the love story is heartfelt, and Conor’s call to music and journey to find himself make for an exciting adventure. After wowing audiences at the Sundance Film Festival, Sing Street will no doubt continue to remind viewers that to fail to pursue a passion is to not really live at all.

B-12.00 -- Trim to 10.00Wx11.00D - CMYK - Georgetown

LEISURE

Sing Street Is an Entertaining, Mixed Blessing

15

PB