The Georgetown Voice, April 7, 2017

VOICE The Georgetown

Ki-ke Salihu Rafiu

Fighting International Basketball’s Religious Headgear Ban page 8

April 7, 2017

2

APRIL 7, 2017

staff

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

editor-in-chief Graham Piro Managing editor Caitlyn Cobb

Volume 49 • Issue 15 news

executive editor Ryan miller Features editor Alex bOyd assistant features editor jonny amon news editor isaiah seibert assistant news editors Jake maher, margaret gach

culture

executive editor Brian Mcmahon Leisure editor caitlin mannering assistant leisure editors Gustav Honl-stuenkel, Devon O’Dwyer, ryan mazalatis Sports editor tyler pearre Assistant sports editor alex lewontin

opinion

Photo by Meriam Salem Photography Edited By aicha nzie

Editorials

4

Carrying On: Vanity’s Affair Isabel Lord

5

Changing the SySTEM and Open Access Emily Jaster and Rebecca Zaritsky Supporting Our Most Vulnerable Luis Gonzalez

6 7

Fighting International Basketball’s Religious Headgear Ban Margaux Fontaine

8

contents

Trump’s Threat to the D.C. Affordable Housing System Nick Gavio

10

Campus Media Concerned Over Budget Cuts Jake Maher and Ryan Miller

12

Hook, Line, and Slasher: Hookman is Terrific and Terrifying Anne Paglia

13

WILD About Spring is an Idyllic Rendering of Nature Gustav Honl-Stuenkel

14

Gifted: A Disjointed and Emotional Journey Mary Mei

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.

Executive editor kevin huggard voices editor emma Francois Assistant Voices editors kaei lI, rebecca zaritsky Editorial Board Chair chris dunn Editorial Board jon block, caitlyn cobb, Nick Gavio, kevin Huggard, Alli Kaufman, Kenneth Lee, GRAHAM PIRO, Isaiah seibert, PHillip Steuber, ryan miller

halftime

Leisure editor amy guay assistant leisure editors brynn furey, emily jaster, anne paglia Sports editor Jorge DeNeve Assistant sports editor parker houston

design

Executive editor alli kaufman Spread editor lindsay reilly Photo Editor Isabel lord assistant design editors jake glass, lizz pankova, jack townsend Staff Designers Alexandra Falkner, Margaux Fontaine, Keeho Kang, Sam Lee, Aicha nzie, max thomas, rachel zeide

copy

copy chief Anna Gloor assistant Copy editors audrey bischoff, julia pinney editors Leanne Almeida, Mica Bernhard, Sienna Brancato, Jack Cashmere, Claire Goldberg, Isabel Lord, Isabel Paret, Jack Townsend

online online editor Anne Freeman Podcast editor Danielle Hewitt assistant podcast editor nick gavio social media editor Claire Goldberg

support

associate editors Mike Bergin, Jon block, lilah burke, michael coyne, cassidy jensen

Staff writers

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

MOnica Cho, Brynne Long, Santul nerkar, madelyn rice, Brice russo, Katya Schwenk, Dan Sheehan, Noah Telerski, Maddie vagadori

3

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

READ & Listen ON GEORGETOWNVOICE.COM sports The Hilltop Welcomes Patrick Ewing Tyler Pearre covers Patrick Ewing’s formal (re)introduction to Georgetown as the new head coach of Georgetown men’s basketball.

News

Alex lewontin

University Endowment Declines Three Percent Noah Telerski reports on the three percent drop in Georgetown University’s endowment. The drop gives Georgetown the 61st largest endowment of schools in the study.

Alli Kaufman

podcasts Taste Test: Jelly Beans This week on Taste Test, podcast editor Danielle Hewitt and Voice alumnus Daniel Varghese join host Erika Bullock in learning the history behind the jelly bean. Later, they take on the Jelly Belly Beanboozled challenge.

The Sports Sermon: MLB Season Preview In this episode of the Sports Sermon, Nick Gavio, Graham Piro, and Alex Boyd discuss expectations and predictions for the upcoming Major League Baseball season.

APRIL 7, 2017

EDITORIALS

4

GUSA Fails Student Media Full Disclosure: The Voice is a member of Media Board.

We believe that student media serves a valuable purpose to the campus community. From the look of its Fiscal Year 2018 Student Activities Report, it appears that GUSA is unconvinced.

The report outlined a 39.5 percent cut in the funding for Media Board, which serves as the advising and funding structure for all media organizations at Georgetown, including print publications, GUTV, WGTB, and others.

Media Board was one of only two student boards to see their budgets cut, the other being the Georgetown Program Board.

As “Campus Media Concerned Over Budget Cuts” reports, GUSA allocated $57,500 to Media Board, less than half of the requested amount. GUSA reported that this year it received decreased funding requests in total and slightly more money from the student activities fee as compared to last year, so this cut cannot be explained by a need for austerity. While this allocation, plus other grant money, will cover Media Board’s essential operating costs, the cut directly threatens the vitality of campus media. This editorial board believes that GUSA has used flawed thinking in making this budget cut, resulting in blatant overreach.

The Fiscal Year 2018 Student Activities Report indicates that GUSA believes that campus print publications need to immediately shift to greater online presences. Any casual observer of the journalism industry can see this impulse across the field, including right here on campus.

Two years ago, the Voice moved to a bi-weekly print production schedule and an increased focus on our website.

This semester, as GUSA’s report mentions, The Hoya announced a cut in their own print production. The Voice

or The Hoya may decide in the future to further reduce their print volume to adapt to a changing media environment, but it is not the place of GUSA to dictate such changes. Only the publications in question-either individually or together as the Media Board-should be making these decisions.

Further, while the GUSA report mentions only the Voice, The Hoya, and WGTB, Media Board contains several other groups which will be affected by this cut. The needs of publications like the Caravel, The Georgetown Independent, and The Triple Helix, among others, and non-print organizations like GUTV are all essentially disregarded by the budget cut.

Their bare needs will be met, but they will have no room for creativity or expansion. Media Board also took on two new organizations this semester, Bossier and The Georgetown Review.

This fact is not acknowledged in the report, although it is specifically stated that the Student Activities Commision’s (SAC) budget was increased by 5.3 percent because it is also taking on new organizations.

Though we cannot speak for other organizations, the Voice will be taking measures to reduce costs next year, primarily through cutting print circulation by 75 percent.

This will undoubtedly harm our visibility on campus, and we are sure that other publications will be forced to make similar choices. An increased online presence is a good goal to have, but for visiting families with little knowledge of campus organizations, seeing print publications around campus is an excellent way of introduction. Getting the minimum to cover essential operations is not enough, especially when it seems as if this logic was only applied to Media Board.

Publicly available notes from the GUSA Senate meeting on March 26, 2017 further convey the justification for the cut. One line, written in shorthand, stands out: “Costs like Marketing/Membership development will be covered by

student membership funds.” These “student membership funds” would presumably come in the form of membership dues, similar to how some other clubs operate on campus.

This is flawed logic. Through our club activities, we are providing a service. We should not have to pay in order to provide it.

As it stands now, journalism is an inherently privileged profession. Students interested in becoming journalists must be willing to work long hours for low or no wages to gain entry-level professional experience. By contrast, student media costs only time for its participants while providing valuable experience for aspiring journalists. Pushing costs onto the members of publications will only continue to push away students who do not come from wealthier backgrounds. This could only make more difficult attempts to make a newsroom that better matches our student body.

With the anti-media sentiment that is so rampant in America today, we feel the need to explicitly justify our existence. Student media provides a service to the greater Georgetown community, and we strive to hold the institutions at Georgetown accountable. We are not perfect. Much of what we do is not world-changing, but we work hard to tell and give voice to valuable stories. In the meantime, we provide an environment in which dozens of students each semester develop marketable skills, not just in writing and editing but also in design, web programming, and business.

This budget reduction sends the message that GUSA believes that it can dictate the future of media at Georgetown, and that Media Board should survive with the bare minimum. We strongly disagree, and put aside our friendly rivalries with our fellow Media Board members to speak out against this cut.

Proposed Cuts Damage District Arts With the announcement of President Donald Trump’s proposed budget, which effectively shuts down the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), federal funding of art and culture is at the greatest risk since the agency’s founding in 1965. The NEA provides vital funds for local artists, theatres, museums, and other cultural institutions, and is especially essential for the Washington, D.C. arts scene.

This editorial board stands against these proposed cuts to the NEA. We believe that funding the arts should be a continued goal of the federal government, and we are especially concerned about the effects these proposed cuts will have on the district. President Trump’s proposed budget does a disservice to the thousands of artists and groups that rely on the agency for funding and to the residents and visitors in the city that visit and appreciate their works.

In 2016, the NEA awarded 135 grants totaling $5.5 million in the District. Preeminent D.C. arts organizations such as the Kennedy Center and the National Symphony Orchestra receive funding from the NEA, but the effects of the proposed cut would be felt most deeply by smaller organizations.

Take, for example, the Arena Stage, a D.C. theatre company that opened its doors in 2010. The company produces a number of American classics, and also carefully nurtures new projects. In recent years, Arena Stage has received grants ranging from $30,000 to

$50,000 from the NEA, and fears that the cuts will make it more difficult for them to take on larger projects and provide adequate production and rehearsal support.

There is also the Shakespeare Theatre Company, an award-winning, 30-year old D.C. hallmark, that is dedicated to making Shakespeare’s timeless classics into accessible, thought-provoking experiences. The company has already organized its upcoming season; therefore, the budget cuts put them in an unpredictable race to find funds from other sources to avoid a deficit.

Some smaller arts organizations in the District do not rely on funding from the NEA, but there is worry that they will bear the brunt of the burden as larger, NEAdependent organizations are forced to seek other sources of funding. The loss of funding from the NEA will also mean a loss of credibility in the eyes of individual donors for arts organizations, as support from the NEA usually aids in signaling to private donors that specific projects or organizations are worth the investment.

In what many consider a cultureless city defined by political agendas, the arts give the District a unique and dynamic identity. Many individual artists, writers, musicians, and filmmakers rely on NEA funding to get their projects up and running and to be able to present them to a wider audience. These funds enable actors to get their first role, and writers to cultivate their voices. NEA-funded programs enable children to learn an instrument when they might not have had the money to do so otherwise.

The NEA reports that 40 percent of NEA-funded programs take place in high-poverty neighborhoods, and 36 percent of NEA grants go toward underserved populations such as those with disabilities and veterans. The proposed cut would mean that many individuals would lose these opportunities in the arts, decreasing the vibrant diversity of the people that can participate in them.

Regardless of one’s desire to attend an art show, a poetry reading, or a theatrical performance, one cannot ignore the fact that the NEA only contributes to just 0.004 percent of the federal budget. Cutting the agency appears to be a more symbolic gesture against the arts than it is an effective costsaving measure.

As Washingtonian has reported, in 2010, nonprofit arts organizations and the people who attended their shows generated $80 million for the D.C. economy. These organizations bring visitors to our city that then patronize the city’s famous shops and restaurants, creating an economic benefit that is difficult to accurately measure.

The arts appeal to our common humanity, to our collective past, and to our collective future. They cultivate tolerance by spanning the socioeconomic and cultural gaps between us. By defunding the NEA, the proposed budget will devastate arts in the district. We find the current administration’s disregard for the artists and art-loving residents of this city and the nation to be unconscionable, and call for a budget that ensures our nation’s focus on the arts will continue for future generations.

5

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

But everyone also deserves happiness, and I am not sure if one person can provide that.

I am still 18 when a guy I am dating becomes possessive, will not talk to me when I talk to my guy friends, and leaves when I mention another’s name. An ex left him wounded, insecure.

I break up with him for someone else.

This is not about guys. It is not about hookup culture. It is about cheating.

Cheating is defined, in the New Oxford American Dictionary, as being sexually unfaithful, but society has deemed it much more. Cheating can be sexual or emotional; it is boundless, muddled from technology, and shrouded in secret. Cheating is complicated and complicating.

I understand cheating as a concept. I understand what it is, that it is taboo, that—as my high school boyfriend deemed—it would be socially appropriate, reasonable even, to metaphorically die at its hands. I do not understand why.

I have seen families created out of cheating, one wife replaced by another who promises kids. One wife, having made good on her promise, replaced by an offer of the same, but newer. A marriage and family formed then destroyed by the act of cheating.

I have lived next to the heartbreak and insecurities born of it. I have never been cheated on, and, despite all this, I am guessing I lack the emotions required to care if I were. I find myself entering relationships with a certain self-control; I allow myself to feel as I deem appropriate. Maybe this discredits everything I write, and maybe you have to feel to know. I do not and I have not. I only feel like I know that I would not feel.

The notion of cheating is the product of a self-conscious society. We are panicked about what people think of us, what people say of us, and even what we think of ourselves. History is one long, winding path of overcompensation, trying to satisfy the silent demands of others.

We tell ourselves we need someone; we have to have someone who will love us and our insecurities. We need someone who will love only us and our insecurities.

Someone who can be ours.

Out of this self-consciousness and overcompensation comes vanity, or perceived vanity, because what else are you supposed to be when forced to constantly concern yourself with others’ perceptions? Pressured into platforms that fuel insecurities and encourage us to brag, we try to be different, to be special, to be someone that someone else can have and someone that someone else can only want to have.

I do not realize it. I do not look at my Instagram feed and wonder what a prospective suitor thinks about it. I do not wonder if someone will love me because of my captions. But I want people to like them; I want people to think I am funny and cool. I feel the pressure to be funny and cool. I subscribe to our culture’s vanity.

I understand that cheating is wrong. It is hurtful. You had security; you had trust. It was broken.

But feeling wounded from cheating is also vain.

How can I expect someone to resign themself to me? What makes me, out of the 7 billion people on this planet, so special that I could render them blind to all others? What gives me the right to prevent someone from a happiness that could be found in the arms of another?

The violation felt from being cheated on is a manifestation of the vanity we are forced to have. We are encouraged to think we are worth devotion and idolization. We are worth love and loving by the entirety of someone else. I am not saying otherwise; everyone deserves appreciation, deserves to find the romance of fairy tales and rumors.

But everyone also deserves happiness, and I am not sure if one person can provide that.

Just as I cannot expect myself to satiate the needs of another, I am not sure anyone can satiate my own. The odds that I find the perfect cocktail of a man—one who is just funny/ romantic/smart/etc. enough—and that he can entertain me for the rest of my life must be astoundingly low. I get bored easily and, in the spirit of the “wasteful” nature of this generation, am already eager to meet my second husband. I anticipate divorce—welcome it, even. Because spending my life asleep next to the same man sounds so dreadfully and so boringly secure to me.

Despite my propensity for boredom, I like to think whatever moral and social compasses I have render me incapable of cheating. I respect the values (e.g. fidelity) produced by the vanity I despise and to which I subscribe. I understand that cheating is hurtful and damaging, and I, like many, would never intend to affect someone in that way.

But, when I am cheated on (because I am confident I will be), I am not sure how I will respond. My current belief is that I will accept it as fact, take it as I would any other realization, and keep living. I am not sure if I would end my relationship with that person.

Society would deem it an appropriate cause for an end, and I can see myself caving to those pressures despite my personal beliefs. Because at the end of the day, I too am vain out of insecurity; I too care what others think. I too do not want to appear weak or desperate for simply not caring. I will be absorbed into thought of the appropriate action. I will be intrigued by the reasons that sparked it. But I will not be surprised when I am cheated on.

NKOVA ELIZABETH PA

I am 12, or around that age, when my parents divorce without explanation. I tell myself it is simple: They just did not love each other anymore.

I am 16 when my boyfriend defines our relationship under the mantra, “Whoever cheats first, dies first.” Romantic, I know. It is he who tells me why my parents divorced—that it was for reasons not as simple as those I had first assumed, reasons more pertinent to this article than love or the lack thereof.

I am 18 when I enter Georgetown. I break up with this boyfriend for the “hookup culture” I had only seen in movies. I am 18 when I feel nothing. Nothing when the guy I am hooking up with does the same with other girls. Nothing when I am not “special.” Nothing when I cannot change him. It is a game of feeling, a contest of who can feel less, and I am determined to win.

By Isabel Lord She is a sophomore in the College.

VOICES

Vanity’s Affair

Carrying On: Voice Staffers Speak

VOICES

6

APRIL 7, 2017

Changing the SySTEM As a woman in science, I consider myself extraordinarily blessed by my upbringing.

Throughout my childhood and early education, I never perceived any indication that women were less capable of science, that women did not have a place in science, or even that women were a minority in the field of science.

In elementary school, my teachers congratulated me on my interest and aptitude in this area of study. By the time I reached high school, I was surrounded by women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Nearly all of my closest female friends aspired to be doctors, researchers, or engineers. By this point, I had been notified by a number of sources that women were outnumbered in science—news articles, personal anecdotes, and male scientist characters in pop culture—but none of this data seemed convincing enough to actually impact my career trajectory as a physicist.

The first intimation of my proximity to the issue came late in my senior year of high school.

On an empty spring afternoon spent wandering the halls, I found myself in conversation with a ninth-grade Earth Science teacher, whom I only knew through a friend. As the teacher and I shared an interest in astronomy, I expressed my aspiration to major in physics at Georgetown and to one day work for NASA. He was intrigued by my interest, and noted how “cool” it was that I wanted to study space—especially since, judging by my appearance, I didn’t seem like someone he would expect to pursue science or excel academically. He was amazed that I was second in my class. “Looking at you, I would expect at most a 3.0 GPA, maybe a 3.5,” he said shortly after noting that I looked like Jenny from Forrest Gump. In that moment, I didn’t surmise that it had anything to do with the fact I was female—I only thought it meant I didn’t have the stereotypical horn-rimmed glasses, pocket-protector, button-down shirt, or whatever the men in the old, black and white photos of physicists wear.

Over the course of my freshman year of college, prejudice against women in science has become frighteningly more apparent. Although the small number of physics majors in my own class is approximately gender-balanced, the young women I met at the American Physical Society Conference for Undergraduate Women in Physics explained that females

accounted for less than one tenth of physics majors at their respective colleges. As a result, these incredible female students felt they had to work twice as hard in class just to prove themselves—to their professors and peers of all gender identities, and even to themselves.

Even with remarkable grades, they felt painfully out of place.

Georgetown is not an exception. The impact of gender bias—whether outwardly or subconsciously—subtly permeates aspects of everyday interactions in and outside of the science classroom. I have witnessed male students aggressively and disrespectfully challenge female science professors on basic concepts during lectures. I have witnessed students ask for assistance from both male and female peers, who often express skepticism toward the female student and confidence toward the male student’s almost identical explanation. I have listened to personal accounts from my female classmates, who have experienced sexism in the lab, where they are criticized more frequently than male counterparts.

The process of erasing gender bias from our local, national, and global community of science is one of building confidence and respect, thereby uprooting cultural instances of prejudice and forming a more inclusive society. Fortunately, our most powerful agents of change are already present all over the world: female scientists themselves. If adults witness women thriving as scientists and children are raised in a world that never takes either gender identity or biological sex as a qualification, our culture will continue to move in a positive direction. Today, I encourage my fellow women in science to have courage and to remember that talent is not contingent upon what others think and say. When you succeed, the truth will be clear.

By Emily Jaster She is a freshman in the College.

Open Access: When Doctors Keep Secrets When my grandfather was diagnosed with stomach cancer, my mother decided not to tell him. Instead, she told him he was having surgery for an ulcer. We went along with it until the pathology report showed that the cancer was not, as we had hoped, in its early stages, but that he would need further therapy. Now, my mother tells him he has “little cancerous cells,” providing as little detail as she can.

She doesn’t think there’s a reason to tell him. He agreed to have the chemotherapy and radiation, and he wouldn’t understand the more complex medical jargon. Besides, he’s not dying. Chances are, he’ll get through chemotherapy and radiation alive and kicking, none the wiser that the “little cancerous cells” were actually a malignant Stage IIIB tumor.

My mother decides how much he knows—he’s her father, and she has power of attorney, so she can chose whether or not to keep him in the dark. But when she told me about doctors who laughed and sided with her when she asked them not to say the word “cancer,” it brought up another question—how much does a patient have the right to know?

This comes up all the time in healthcare. When I shadowed in the pediatric intensive care unit, the child life therapist told me about a 15-year-old boy who wasn’t told he had cancer even though he was getting chemotherapy and was seeing an oncologist. As an EMT, I’ve seen paramedics hem and haw, stalling rather than telling a patient they were having a heart attack. I saw a doctor look at a boy’s MRI and sigh at the tumor, then walk into the boy’s room smiling and say he hadn’t had time to look at the scans yet.

There are times at which the right thing to do is clear-cut. When an Alzheimer’s patient asked me if her long-dead husband would meet us at the hospital, I told her I didn’t know since I knew she would only ask again a moment later and there was no reason to make her relive that trauma. When a 42-year-old single mother wants to know if she should be making plans for her children’s care after finding a lump in her breast, telling her the truth ensures that her children are cared for.

What about the grey areas? Can we wait to give a depressed patient bad news if it could damage their condition? Should we tell paranoid patients about changes in their

drug regime? Do we deliver bad news before Christmas in the interest of transparency, or do we wait and let a family enjoy their holiday?

To attempt an answer, we need to examine what can happen if we avoid the truth. It’s true that it might help a patient in the short term to hide information, but nobody can hide the truth forever. Finding out too late could be so devastating to the patient that the harm would be greater in the long-term. In these cases, keeping the truth from a person is a selfish act, designed to keep the would-be bearer more comfortable. That’s unforgivable. In other cases, it’s a favor to them—letting them enjoy a few more days in ignorance before dropping the devastating news. There’s a balance between what is gained in the time one spends in the dark and what is lost. We walk a balance-beam between cautious optimism and delusion, but it’s so thin we tend to fall off and land too far on one side.

We have to take it step-by-step, or case-by-case. For the boy with the spinal tumor, I don’t believe the doctor was doing harm by not telling him. The neurologist would be there within an hour to explain the diagnosis. The father would get an extra hour to watch his son sleep without knowing he was going to die. For the teenage boy with cancer, he would have felt confused and betrayed, which would be outweighed by any worry that was offset by his parents’ secrecy. The harm of not telling him what was going on would have been significant.

These are all my opinions, and someone else might feel differently and make their own decision. I wish there were clear-cut answers that we could make into a flowchart for medical professionals to follow, but ethics don’t work that way.

Instead, we stumble around, hopefully messing up less and less as we go. It’s all any of us can do.

By Rebecca Zaritsky She is a freshman in the College.

7

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

VOICES

Supporting Our Most Vulnerable

ELIZABETH PANKOVA

Each time I have the opportunity to pass by Healy Hall, I can’t help but think of how fortunate I am to be at an institution like Georgetown. I look at how magnificent the building is and often wonder whether I am living in reality or not. It just seems so surreal.

But after the 2016 presidential election, I began to feel a disconnect between how grateful I was to be here and whether or not I belonged. Each time I walked by Healy Hall, I could not help but think about my undocumented status. I repeatedly questioned what could happen to me and my ability to be in this country, especially as there was uncertainty surrounding President Obama’s executive action, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which President Trump vowed to rescind while on the campaign trail.

Frankly, I questioned whether or not I should continue to work toward obtaining a degree. Is it worth it? Why should I pursue this if I will not be able to obtain a job without my DACA work authorization? The election of President Trump has brought about a huge wave of uncertainty for my family and me.

Very quickly, however, I found myself surrounded by a community of caring and supportive individuals. It became less about future job prospects or about getting a degree.

These things didn’t matter. Instead, I found strength through community, and this allowed me to once again see myself, and my place at this university, as something that I should never question. I found support and allyship through the Muslim Student Association, Campus Ministry, the Georgetown Scholarship Program, the Center for Multicultural Equity and Access, and so many other offices on campus. The uncertainty disappeared, and I could again see Healy with the same sense of pride and gratitude as I did before.

I finally understand Georgetown’s commitment that regardless of my identity as an undocumented, low-income, first-generation Latino, I can flourish (even when just 2 miles away from our campus, there are political forces debating my human existence). I finally understand Georgetown’s mission to be more than a simple phrase admissions officers have to repeat to get students to come here. It is actually something the university stood by.

As a member of the undocumented student population on campus, I feel tremendously grateful for all the measures the university has taken to support my community. This support

has included the launching of a website, undocumented.georgetown.edu, which details the support system for undocumented students; a partnership with Catholic Charities, which provides legal services to undocumented students; and the hiring of our first-ever part-time undocumented student advisor. These, among other things, have shown how supportive the university has been towards my community.

Now, however, it is imperative that, as a community, we take a clear stand to support those who are most vulnerable. Undocumented students are not the only students in difficult situations. There are students from mixed-status families who are struggling with the fear that their parents might be deported. There are Muslim students who continue to encounter Islamophobic rhetoric and policies. There are LGBT students who continue to face discrimination for their identity and for who they love. There are Jewish students who face increasing waves of anti-Semitism. There are so many in vulnerable circumstances. We must all stand in solidarity with each other.

I encourage everyone to try to understand the vast array of experiences, worries, and frustrations simultaneously present on this campus. The truth is, we all come from different places and might not be well-versed in the experiences of others. It is a learning experience for all of us, and the least we can do is be willing to understand the complex identities of others— so have an open mind and an open heart. Listen attentively to our journeys and stories and help us change the narrative that perpetuates our marginalization.

After all, we are all Hoyas.

By Luis Gonzalez He is a sophomore in the College.

APRIL 7, 2017 2017 APRIL 7,

8 8

OFFENSIVE FOUL: Fighting International Basketball’s Religious Headgear Ban Georgetown’s Women’s Basketball team huddles before a game

For former Georgetown women’s basketball player Ki-Ke Salihu Rafiu (COL ’16), a headscarf was a normal part of her uniform. Tied snugly around her head, the Georgetown-gray fabric was a way for her to live out her Muslim faith while playing the sport she loved.

Rafiu, now a graduate assistant on the team, decided to begin wearing a headscarf during games and practice during her sophomore year. She was permitted to do this thanks to the NCAA’s non-restrictive policies regarding religious headgear.

But such accommodation isn’t the norm at every level of basketball. The International Basketball Federation (FIBA), the worldwide governing body of professional basketball, currently restricts players from wearing any religious headgear on the court.

While FIBA has long cited safety concerns as justification for this ban, the policy has been met with clear opposition from athletes who wish to cover their heads, claiming it forces them to choose between their sport and their faith.

“You can tell that I’m a Muslim, and it shouldn’t be a problem when I say I want to cover my hair,” Rafiu said. “But, apparently, in today’s world, it is a huge problem.”

Article 4.4.2 At the college level, the process for requesting permission to wear religious headgear is straightforward—players submit basic paperwork and an explanation to the NCAA. The coach is then given a letter from the NCAA as a response to potential inquiries from referees.

“You sign a waiver and everything is done,” Rafiu explained.

“It’s a really easy process.”

Although athletes who wear faith-based headgear are met with accommodation at the college level, they face a greater challenge when it comes to playing in professional leagues.

Article 4.4.2 of FIBA’s Official Basketball Rules bars players from wearing “equipment that may cause injury to other players,” including “headgear, hair accessories and jewellery.” Players are permitted to wear headbands provided that they’re less than five centimeters in width.

Because FIBA is the chief organizer of professional basketball at the national and international levels, any player who chooses to cover their head for religious reasons — whether with a hijab, turban, or yarmulke — is severely restricted from playing professionally or internationally. A basketball player who wears a headscarf, for example, currently cannot represent their country at the Olympics.

“So [for] anything that’s international, that rule literally stops you from doing what you wanna do,” Rafiu said.

The impact of this ban was seen front and center at the 2014 Asian Games, when Qatar’s women’s basketball team walked off the court after being told they could not wear their hijabs during their game against Mongolia, forfeiting the game.

But the effects are even more far-reaching, posing barriers for many aspiring players hoping to go pro. Bilqis Abdul-Qaadir, for instance, graduated high school as the leading scorer in Massachusetts state history, and went on to play Division I at Memphis University and Indiana State University. Despite her athletic talent, her dreams of playing in a professional league overseas were shattered when she

learned about the restriction.

“With this rule, you’re eliminating a whole group of people that wants to play a sport,” Rafiu said. “Because of just one rule, you say no, they cannot do it. Isn’t that discriminatory?”

Safety Concerns While FIBA has consistently maintained that Article 4.4.2 is in place purely out of concern for player safety, athletes like Raifu remain skeptical, pointing out that there is no evidence that headgear actually poses a danger. Soccer’s governing body, FIFA, had a similar headgear restriction in place until 2014. After a successful two-year trial period they found no safety concerns associated with players wearing religious headgear.

“I played with a headscarf on my head at Georgetown,” Rafiu said. “I never hurt anybody, and I never got hurt.”

Georgetown theology professor Ori Soltes recently published God and the Goalposts, which looks at the historic intersections between religion and sports. He also expressed his skepticism regarding these safety concerns. As an example, he referenced the story of a high school basketball player in Maryland who, after participating all season with no problems, wasn’t allowed to play in her team’s final game because of her hijab.

“Is that because [her hijab] was dangerous in that game, but not in the previous 24 games? That sounds a little bit suspicious to me,” Soltes said.

Similar to the NCAA, the National Federation of State High School Associations rule book technically requires a signed waiver in order to allow religious headgear—but nei-

E

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

ther the player, Je’Nan Hayes, nor her coach were previously aware of this. That’s because the rule had rarely been enforced, leading some to question the referee’s decision to strictly follow it in this specific instance.

“I would be inclined to suppose that when the authority —whether it's an individual referee, or whether it's FIBA, or whoever is it—says that a player cannot wear headgear that is part of that player’s religious obligation, then that is a combination, let’s say, of ignorance, and being opposed to that person’s religion,” Soltes said.

Soltes is willing to grant that the decision might come more out of ignorance than prejudice, but he still finds the potential danger of headgear to be a weak explanation for keeping players—whether in high school or at the professional level—from playing the game.

“With this rule, you’re eliminating a whole group of people that wants to play a sport,” Rafiu said.

“I don’t think it’s genuinely about safety,” he said.

In a broader context, Muslim women facing adversity as a result of wearing a headscarf or hijab is not uncommon. Kristin Sekerci, program coordinator at the Bridge Initiative, Georgetown University's Islamophobia research project, noted that the hijab has become largely politicized within national discourse, and is often viewed as threatening.

“You have to wonder if that kind of rhetoric is saturating into even these apolitical fields, like sports,” Sekerci said.

Ki-Ke Rafiu watches from the bench during a game

99

Fighting Back In 2014, Bosnian-American professional basketball player Indira Kaljo created a petition on Change.org urging FIBA to follow in FIFA’s footsteps. With nearly 70,000 supporters, the petition was initially successful—FIBA introduced a two-year trial period during which players would be allowed to wear religious headgear on a limited basis. The final decision on the matter was supposed to be made in August 2016, but this date was later postponed. In March, FIBA announced that a proposed rule change would be presented to the Mid-Term Congress in May. Rafiu, Abdul-Qaadir, and other basketball players joined Kaljo in starting a second petition in 2016 pushing for a final decision. Rafiu felt compelled to join the movement due to its personal relevance to her, not only as a Muslim athlete, but as a Hoya.

“Georgetown also played a role [by] helping me to practice my faith while I play the sport that I like during my undergrad,” she added.

While the petition was met with overwhelming support —gathering over 130,000 supporters—not all responses were positive.

“When we submitted our petition online, there were a lot of terrible comments from people,” Rafiu said. “But that never made us back down from what we’re standing for, and what we’re fighting for.”

Increased Visibility Despite current challenges within the world of basketball, Muslim women have nonetheless seen a huge boost in visibility elsewhere in the athletic world. At the 2016 Summer Olympics, American fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad made history as the first member of Team USA to wear a hijab, winning a bronze medal while representing her faith. And thanks to a last-minute rule change by the International Volleyball Federation, the Egyptian women’s beach volleyball team was able to compete in the games for the first time, wearing clothing with more coverage than is traditionally required for the sport.

Rafiu on the court

“At its best, sports is about [how] you succeed by the sweat of your brow, and not by the color of your skin, or the form of your faith, or your ethnicity,” Soltes said. “At its best that’s what it's all about, that’s what the Olympics is supposed to be all about.”

Some athletic brands are also contributing to this increase in visibility. Nike recently announced the release of their new “Pro Hijab,” a line of athletic-style headgear aimed at Muslim women athletes.

Sekerci explained that increased visibility could have a positive impact by helping people to look beyond negative stereotypes and perceptions of Muslims.

“I think the more we humanize these experiences, the more it’ll kind of demystify the hijab as this scary ‘other’ thing, and just a normal part of the way people dress in the morning and live out their faith,” Sekerci said.

Nike has been celebrated for their nod to inclusivity. However, Sekerci believes that Nike should also do more to use their influence where it counts, such as by joining the push to convince FIBA to overturn the policy that prevents many Muslim basketball players from actually playing.

“While I think it’s really cool that [Nike] is considering to design a clothing line for athletes who wear hijab, it would also be really appreciated if they could throw their corporate muscle around and talk to these international federations,” Sekerci said.

“If they really care about athletes, which I know they say they do, that’s something I think many would appreciate and would really like to see them step in and do.”

In the meantime, former and current Muslim women’s basketball players like Rafiu remain at the front lines of the FIBA battle, and continue to argue that lifting the headgear ban would give more athletes the opportunity to participate in the sport without compromising their religious beliefs.

“If FIBA can lift the ban, the game is gonna grow tremendously in a lot of areas,” Rafiu said. “And I think this is what FIBA actually wants.”

Looking beyond the impact on the athletes themselves, Sekerci thinks that lifting the ban could send an even greater message.

“It’s more like this greater narrative of whether we’re willing to make room for other forms of representation, other forms of identity, other forms of just how you wear your uniform.”

By Margaux Fontaine

All Photos Courtesy of Georgetown sports Information

10

APRIL 7, 2017

Shelter Shocked Trump’s Threat to the DC Affordable Housing System

Graphic: Jake Glass

By Nick Gavio While public attention has recently focused on military funding, cuts in diplomatic programs, Twitter posts, and presidential golf outings, many D.C. residents are slated to potentially lose their homes if President Trump’s budget for the 2018 fiscal year is confirmed. The first draft includes $54 billion worth of cuts to a host of federal agencies and programs, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—the primary federal provider of policy and monetary support to address housing needs across the country.

The initial budget proposes a $6 billion cut in total HUD funding, which would leave the department with an overall budget 14 percent smaller than last year’s. If confirmed by Congress, these HUD budget cuts would pose a particularly significant threat to the District’s already underfunded affordable housing system.

“Yes, the [D.C. affordable housing] situation is bad. Yes, it’s going to get worse if the Trump budget is approved by Congress,” said Paul Brophy, lecturer at the Georgetown School of Continuing Studies Urban & Regional Planning program.

The District’s home and rent prices have skyrocketed following an influx of college-educated professionals to D.C. and an overall increase in population growth over the past decade.

The number of D.C. apartments renting for less than $800 per month dropped by almost half from 2002 to 2013, according to a District of Columbia Fiscal Policy Institute (DCFPI) study. Over the same period of time, average income for the bottom 40 percent of D.C. renters did not change, according to the same study.

Because of this increase in wealthier D.C. residents, it has become more lucrative for many housing development companies to allow their affordable housing contracts with the government to expire in favor of remodeling complexes into luxury apartments.

Since 2000, 52 percent of U.S. Census tracts—neighborhood boundaries used to measure community population growth—in D.C. have been “gentrified,” as both average home prices and average education level in these neighborhoods have significantly increased. Because of this gentrification and in-

crease in rent prices, many low-income residents in the District can no longer afford to pay market prices for housing.

According to another DCFPI study, 43,000 District residents are currently considered “extremely low-income,” meaning that their total income is below 30 percent of the average median income of the general area population. Housing is considered “affordable” by HUD when rent or mortgage, plus utilities, represents no more than 30 percent of a household’s total gross income. By this definition, 81 percent of these 43,000 extremely low-income D.C. residents do not pay an affordable price for their housing.

Many different programs help bridge the gap between what low-income residents can afford to pay for housing and what is available on the market, but most of these programs would be slashed heavily if Trump’s budget proposal were approved by Congress.

The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is funding disbursed from HUD that assists local governments in providing affordable housing to its residents.

The money from this program is used for both housing and non-housing activities, including funding affordable housing projects, improving existing infrastructure, and providing down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers.

Some CDBG funding is given to nonprofit developers, which Brophy said is important to provide affordable housing in the District. “Nonprofits need to be able to step in and have the resources to buy housing in the District and keep it available to low-income people,” Brophy said.

The fund would be entirely eliminated under the proposed Trump budget, with the District itself losing $14 million in CDBG allocation, despite the numerous previous uses of this money.

One such nonprofit that benefits from CDBG funding is the Community Preservation and Development Corporation (CPDC), which develops 5,300 housing complexes across D.C., Maryland, and Virginia that serve renters ranging from 100 percent subsidized by the federal government to those who can pay the full market price. J. Michael Pitchford, CEO of CPDC, explained that cuts to block grant programs like CDBG will limit what local governments can do to assist nonprofits and developers.

Efforts to provide affordable housing cannot stop simply with the construction of complexes, Pitchford said. In addition to the development of affordable housing facilities, CPDC also partners with other nonprofit organizations to supply residents with Community Impact Strategies. These services allow residents access to necessary resources and training that advance their professional skill sets and support their endeavors.

“Our belief is that doing good real estate is sort of the price of entry, but doing right by the residents includes providing them some additional support,” Pitchford said.

CPDC tailors resources to the residents of each specific complex using each community’s demographic profile. Pitchford explained that an after-school program would not be as beneficial to a community comprised almost entirely of senior citizens as it would be to a community containing a large number of single parents. However, CPDC’s decisions are more nuanced than just demographics.

“There’s a certain art to this as well as science. It’s not just about the demographic profile and what they tell us they need, it’s a little bit about what we think they need,” Pitchford said.

In addition to providing organizations like CPDC with funding to purchase new complexes, the CDBG program also helps preserve existing affordable housing complexes and ensure that they are maintained to sufficient health and safety standards. Claire Zippel, a policy analyst at DCFPI, said that preserving existing facilities is a crucial solution to sustaining housing for low-income residents.

“It’s not only more effective in terms of people not losing their homes, but it’s also a lot less expensive to preserve affordable housing than it is to build new units,” Zippel said.

Trump’s budget proposal would not only impose major cuts to the CDBG program that funds private complexes, but also funding that the District’s Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) receives to make capital improvements to public housing buildings owned and operated by the local government. Under the current budget proposal, this department’s funding would decrease by over 70 percent.

11

Extremely Low-Income Renters

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

50%

Extremely Low-Income Renters Spend Disproportionately More on Housing

42%

40% 30% 20%

19%

18%

0-30%

30-50%

20%

10% 0

50-80%

80-100%

Share of Income Spent on Rent Source: D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute; Graphic: jake glass

“Really, they can’t afford to lose any dollars for repairs because the public housing in our city is in really poor condition and, honestly, many units present health and safety risks to the residents,” Zippel said. The District has previously acknowledged that it requires approximately $1.3 billion in funding to maintain, improve, and redevelop 6,500 of the 8,300 housing units it manages.

Despite this need, total federal public housing funding was cut by $1.6 billion between 2010 and 2016. “Public housing has been chronically underfunded for the past decade by the federal government, so there’s really not much left to cut from,” Zippel said.

The proposed Trump budget would levy an additional $2 billion of cuts to the national public housing program in the upcoming fiscal year. “There would be no way that cuts of that magnitude could be implemented without actually terminating assistance from people who are currently receiving it,” Zippel said. “So, that would mean folks getting evicted.”

Not only are many D.C. public housing facilities in bad shape, but private complexes serving low-income residents that subsidize their rent through public programs are also in very poor condition. The main federal program that provides subsidy assistance is the Housing Choice Voucher program, also known as the Section 8 Voucher program, which directly subsidizes rent for low-income people living in private housing facilities.

Washington City Paper has reported extensively on the practices of Sanford Capital, a D.C. property management company that rents to residents subsidized under the Section 8 program.

Sanford is currently being charged with housing code violations by the D.C. Attorney General. The lawsuit claims that the conditions of one Sanford complex are “deplorable” and that the company has repeatedly ignored orders from the local government to rectify the problems in its complexes. These issues with the quality of Section 8 housing in the District would only get worse under the proposed Trump budget.

For Brophy, further cuts to the Section 8 program would inhibit the D.C. government’s ability to make up the difference between what renters can afford to pay for housing and the market price.

While CDBG funding and Section 8 vouchers are appropriated to states by the federal government, the District also has its own local

programs that provide developers with stipends that are used for the construction and maintenance of affordable housing facilities.

D.C.’s affordable low-income housing system relies heavily on the Housing Production Trust Fund (HPTF), a local program that provides grants and loans to affordable housing developers and assists in financing housing projects. The HPTF is funded primarily by a tax imposed on home purchases within the District, but the D.C. government can also make transfers to the HPTF from the District’s general revenue pool.

“Those funds have built up over the years because as the housing market has boomed in Washington, D.C., more money has been paid into [the HPTF],” Brophy said. “It’s still not nearly enough money to provide the kind of affordable housing that people in the District need.”

Under D.C. regulations, at least 40 percent of the HPTF’s investments must be allocated to projects benefiting extremely low-income households. An additional 40 percent of the fund’s expenditures must be designated for projects assisting households with a household income between 30 percent and 50 percent of the area’s median income.

However, a report released by the Office of the District of Columbia Auditor found that there was “a lack of oversight on loan repayments, retaining affordable units, and compliance with program requirements” on the HPTF. The report recommended an increase in oversight, compliance monitoring, and data reliability. In an email to the Voice, Gwendolyn Cofield, Communications Director at DHCD, pointed to the her department’s official reply to the report, noting that it plans to hire an independent auditor and redirect staff to conduct compliance oversight on the HPTF, among other changes.

“I think the steps that DHCD has taken so far in terms of redirecting staff to do more oversight is critically important,” Zippel said. “The report noted again and again that if the agency doesn’t have the staff to conduct proper oversight, the oversight isn’t going to get done.”

Programs like the HPTF allow the D.C. government to fund affordable housing projects with local funding not appropriated by the federal government, so these programs would continue

regardless of HUD budget cuts. To further improve these efforts to provide affordable housing to low-income residents without requiring federal assistance, Mayor Muriel Bowser convened a Housing Preservation Strike Force in 2015. The strike force was formed to create a plan for preserving the District’s existing affordable housing agreements that are set to expire before 2020.

In November 2016, the strike force released its final report, recommending the creation of a new branch of the local government named the “Preservation Unit,” a department designed solely to maintain existing affordable housing units in the city.

The strike force also suggested that the D.C. government create a Public-Private Preservation Fund to facilitate investments in preservation agreements.

All of these recommendations would only preserve existing public housing facilities rather than create new affordable units. According to Zippel, one of the most common policy prescriptions that can be used to alleviate the shortage of affordable housing in D.C. without investing additional public funds is inclusionary zoning.

Inclusionary zoning allows private developers to build more units on a property than zoning laws allow, provided that a portion of the additional units are priced below the market price.

This practice usually assists moderate to low-income renters, as the prices rarely drop far enough below the market-rate price to benefit extremely low-income residents.

“Typically, [inclusionary zoning] can’t get rents down to the level where someone working a minimum wage job or relying on Social Security can afford the apartment,” Zippel said. Inclusionary zoning, therefore, would not address the current lack of affordable housing available to extremely low-income residents.

Between the expected continuation of population growth in the District, questions surrounding the city’s current affordable housing system, and the additional proposed cuts to funding, the local government faces an uphill battle to ensure safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for extremely low income residents.

Whether it is constructing new affordable housing complexes or improving the conditions of units that already exist, developing affordable housing options for extremely low income people will directly affect the lives of District residents—43,000 of them.

12

APRIL 7, 2017

K

JAC

D

EN

NS

W TO

The GUSA Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee (Fin/App) cut funding for Media Board by 39.5 percent for fiscal year 2018 compared to 2017’s allocation, a decrease of $37,500, according to the 2018 Student Activities Budget Report. GUSA senators have said that this cut restores the board to its historical funding levels. (Full Disclosure: the Voice is a member of Media Board.)

In the report, Fin/App called on clubs in Media Board, which represents student publications and media outlets, to lower print costs and consider increasing online presence. However, Media Board clubs have raised concerns over how the cut will affect operations and membership, as well as GUSA’s role in allocating money to campus media.

“I think the budget cuts forces every publication to shift gears. The decrease in funding forces everyone in the Media Board to focus on staying afloat financially rather than on how to contribute more,” wrote Robert Danco (SFS ’18), executive director of The Caravel, in an email to the Voice.

The total amount to be allocated for all clubs slightly increased for the 2017-2018 school year, and most advisory boards and clubs received increased funding, according to the report.

Media Board received the largest cut of all advisory boards.

In fiscal year 2017, Media Board was allocated $95,000– a 42 percent increase from the year before. “The Committee’s rationale for this large increase came in part because of Media Board’s improved budgeting efforts and our recognition of the importance of print media on Georgetown’s campus,” Fin/App wrote in its 2017 report.

The $57,500 allotment is more than $50,000 less than Media Board requested. These cuts return the board to a funding level in between their 2015 and 2016 allocations of $60,000 and $55,000, respectively.

Fin/App’s Media Board liaison Alejandro Serrano (MSB ’17) initially replied to an interview request, but did not reply to setup a time. Media Board chair Paul Henderson (COL ’18), a member of WGTB, did not reply to an interview request.

Fin/App vice chair Scott Lowder (COL ’17) said a majority of this year’s Fin/App committee believed that the 2017 allocation was “bloated.” When asked what caused the increase in 2017 followed by a cut in 2018, Lowder declined to comment because he was not a member of Fin/App for the fiscal year 2017 budgeting process. This year’s Fin/App Chair Owen Hayes (COL ’18), who was also on Fin/App last year, did not reply to interview requests or questions sent via email.

However, Lowder said, “We wanted to get Media Board back to around its operating budget so it could focus on sort of its core mission.”

While the report cites The Hoya’s decision to cut print costs by $40,000 as another reason for cutting Media Board’s budget, the board’s costs increased in other areas. Media Board gained two new clubs for fiscal year 2018–Bossier and The Georgetown Review.

The Student Activities Commission (SAC), which oversees more than 100 clubs, saw a 5.3 percent increase for 2018 after accepting new clubs, according to the 2018 report. Lowder said that the presence of new clubs was considered in the budgeting for Media Board.

Campus Media Concerned Over Budget Cuts

By Ryan Miller and Jake Maher Unlike Media Board, which submitted line-item budgets showing exact costs for operations, SAC submitted lump sum requests given its large size as an advisory board. “I think even if you could get all that information [about SAC clubs’ budgets], I think it would be hard for us to digest it in the same way that we can take a look at a smaller advisory board,” Lowder said.

Daniel Almeida (MSB ’18), general manager of The Hoya, said Fin/App’s ability to review each budgeting request may have made cutting Media Board’s budget easier. “They could go through the line-item requests from each organization on Media Board and … select things that they thought were important to fund and things that they didn’t think were important to fund.”

Media Board will still meet at least its minimum operating budget with Fin/App and Student Affairs funding, as well as a grant from Coca-Cola. Fin/App is the sole body that allocates funding from the yearly Student Activities Fee. “Elected representatives ideally in this process can take a broader look and balance different needs,” Lowder said.

“Unfortunately in some cases, that does end up becoming value judgements on ‘this or that activity’ undertaken via an advisory board.”

According to Almeida, there is generally little overlap between the GUSA senate and Media Board organizations. “A concern that is shared by a lot of advisory boards is that there is very little oversight as to what goes into individual Fin/App senators’ decision-making process,” Almeida said. “Senators tend to be involved in SAC groups or club sports groups.”

Lowder said that in his opinion online is the center of campus media, although he added that GUSA respects the independence of advisory boards. “Advisory boards know best and know what they can give up and know what they need to function,” Lowder said.

However, in its fiscal year 2018 report, Fin/App stated, “Going forward the Committee would like to see increased measures taken to rein in costs associated with print and subscriptions, and to further consider the increasing online presence of various publications.”

Media Board was one of two advisory boards, along with Georgetown Program Board (GPB), to appeal their allocation.

GPB received additional funding in the appeal, in part because it made a compelling case, Lowder said.

In the appeals process, Media Board did not include roughly $25,000 of the funding from Student Affairs it would receive for fiscal year 2018. Lowder said the initial budget request, which did include the $25,000, and the appeals request are two separate processes, and that forgetting funding during any step of the club funding process showed a lack of consideration for the Fin/App process.

Although the budget report made no reference to internal problems within Media Board, GUSA Senate meeting minutes from March 26 reference a “sign of [a] malfunctioning board” when Media Board was discussed.

“Media Board did not offer a compelling presentation at any time during the budgeting process, and its structure, which I believe to be flawed, may have contributed to that,” Lowder wrote in an email to the Voice.

Media Board’s structure differs because its members represent the clubs to which they personally belong. SAC commissioners, for example, cannot serve as commissioners for a group if they are on its board, and they represent multiple clubs, according to Lowder.

Lowder cited Media Board’s vote on the Dec. 1 referendum on club funding, which was later ruled illegitimate, as an example of this flawed structure. Media Board unanimously endorsed the referendum among its members, but Media Board representative Evan Zimmet (MSB ’17) abstained from the Council of Advisory Boards (CAB) vote, which Lowder called unfair. Zimmet did not respond to an email request for comment.

“Zimmet abstained from the endorsement vote in CAB due to his role on The Hoya and ‘journalistic ethics.’ His abstention was the deciding vote,” Lowder wrote.

Hoya editor-in-chief Toby Hung (COL ’18) called the structure of GUSA allocating funds for campus media broken given that campus publications sometimes report critically on student government. “We have to be objective,” Hung said. “So we report on these members of GUSA, and they are directly responsible for our funding allocation.”

Lowder said that coverage of GUSA did not affect funding decisions for campus media.

Although the budget cut was intended to encourage a shift towards online rather than print journalism, small student media organizations that depend heavily on print editions to survive have long-term concerns. Eva Niedermeyer (COL ’19), managing editor of The Georgetown Independent, wrote that the publication’s existence relies on its print issues.

“As a relatively small publication, The Independent’s main costs are printing and our website subscription. With the decrease in the Media Board’s budget, we will most likely have to cut down on the number of issues we print,” she wrote in an email to the Voice. “As most of our readers obtain and rely on the physical copy of our magazine, this brings a large level of uncertainty into the future of The Independent.” The magazine prints monthly.

Danco echoed Niedermeyer’s concerns that his organization’s operations will suffer because of the cut. “We expanded our staff, rolled out two new departments, and took on more aspirational projects. The budget cuts effectively kneecap all of those initiatives,” he wrote.

“Now, instead of talking about new ways to work with ambassadors in D.C. or how to innovate our approach to social media content, our executive team has to sit down and apply to grants to make sure we can even print our paper.”

Michele Dale (SFS ’19), editor-in-chief of Bossier, expressed concern for the magazine’s future in light of the reduced budget.

“It is really important that Bossier be a print issue. It’s central to who we are as a ‘zine and is part of what makes us unique. That being said, we are unsure if we will be able to print next year as a result of these changes,” she wrote.

Not only does the Media Board’s budget cut make operations more difficult for existing publications, but it also threatens to limit the opportunities for new clubs to form, wrote Niedermeyer. “With the future of Media Board dramatically destabilized, the ability for new student publications to be created decreases, and the potential for new outside voices to be heard is reduced.”

13

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

Hook, Line, and Slasher: Hookman is Terrific and Terrifying Isabel Lord

By spilling forth everything meant to be contained in the fragile receptacles of human bodies—blood, guts, brains, you name it—the slasher genre appeals to the perverse in people.

Hookman, the latest production by the Black Theatre Ensemble, does just that, but with a culturally conscious twist. Written by Lauren Yee, Hookman sheds more than blood onto the Village C stage: it unleashes the terrors of a young girl’s mind.

The play begins with an eruption of “Lose My Breath” by Destiny’s Child from a car stereo. Lexi (Carmen Livesay [COL ’17]) and Jess (KC Pietro [COL ’19]) drive distractedly to the movies, reunited during the first break of their freshman year.

Fistfuls of In-N-Out fries wander off course from Jess’s mouth and drop to the floor, while a substance which may or may not be ketchup stains her shirt and seat. Jess stayed local for college, but Lexi decided to go to Georgetown, and this geographical riff has had an evident effect on their friendship.

This scene, animated by fast food and early 2000’s pop, is revisited throughout the duration of the play. Each time the cast brings Lexi’s bright-red car back on stage, it signals that crucial information is about to surface.

The play has the pace of a thriller and intimacy of a haunted house.

While the interactions between Lexi and Jess are complex, loving but tense, Jess’ forthcoming accident is predictable.

True to slasher style, the teenage girl is the first to meet an untimely death. It immediately becomes clear, however, that Yee is much too clever to use this trope haphazardly. Her

self-awareness unfolds when the play enters the territory of trauma and rape, all while honoring the conventions of horror.

The script is superb—it delicately maneuvers through challenging topics and is cognizant of its collegiate audience. Director Christina M. Ibarra (COL ’17) even made Georgetown-specific modifications (half of the play is set on campus). References to the Hilltop make the events feel disturbingly familiar and serve as a reminder that even Hoyas are not immune to the mental health issues that Lexi faces everyday.

And in Hookman , Lexi quite literally faces her issues.

They take the form of a Michael Myers-type horror known has Hookman. Whenever Hookman appears, she is forced to confront the guilt caused by Jess’ death and the anxiety planted in her by rape. Lexi does not fear because Hookman exists; Hookman exists because she fears. He is the manifestation of her trauma, a projection of her mind.

When this realization descends, a question arises: Will Lexi ever escape him?

The state of Lexi’s personal relationships is just as ambiguous. Broken dialogue and misunderstandings fracture intimacy between characters. Whether this lack of social fulfillment is the product of Lexi’s insecurities and mental distress or the permeation of technology, it is unclear. Lexi’s initial reaction to Jess’s death contributes to this alienation, too, but the selflessness she musters towards the end of the play restores hope.

Despite the heavy content, Hookman does not sink into despair. The play has the pace of a thriller and intimacy of a haunted house—the latter thanks to the compact Village C Theatre where the show is in repertory with The Last Days of Judas Iscariot. For this reason, the set is simple, consisting of a dorm room and a movable car. Nonetheless, it suffices for the play’s purpose. Hookman ’s sound design, devised by Daniel Wheelock (COL ’19), is thoughtful and effective. Wheelock’s original score adds to the suspense, as does the music placement. The lighting, on the other hand, demonstrates similar vision but suffers in execution.

In one somewhat clumsy scene, Lexi’s boyfriend Sean is

supposed to be present only on a computer screen, but the effects leave this fact unclear. Besides such occasional confusion, the effects work well to enhance emotion and ensure chills.

The faint of heart will be relieved to know that the blood in Hookman is thinned by hilarity. Hookman himself, played by Mark Camilli (COL ’19), manages to be both a horror and a hoot. Camilli’s portrayal of Hookman is comical, but in the midst of the plot, his character retains an air of wickedness. Cristin Crowley (MSB ’20) also shines in her role of the annoying girl-next-door, Chloe. Together, Camilli and Crowley allow the audience entrance into the play, breaking the fourth wall in order to tease and taunt viewers.

The faint of heart will be relieved to know that the blood in Hookman is thinned by hilarity.

Ibarra fully understood the limitations of college theatre when choosing Hookman . It is neither overly ambitious nor inaccessible, sure to satisfy even those reluctant theater-goers in the audience. If one is simply looking for a thrill, Hookman will deliver. But if one is up to the greater challenge of engaging the issues the play puts forward, Hookman will be much, much more than the sum of its scares.

By Anne Paglia

14

APRIL 7, 2017

LEISURE

marian osher

WILD About Spring Is an Idyllic Rendering of Nature The brownstone houses populating our quaint neighborhood are home to diplomats, lawyers, and politicos alike, with boutiques, cafes, and salons peppered throughout. An occasional gallery is wedged among this eclectic mix, a reminder of Washington’s vibrant artistic community and a gathering place for those who support that community. Marin Osher opened her exhibition WILD About Spring on April 1 at one of these artistic nooks, the Washington Printmakers Gallery at 1641 Wisconsin Ave NW. The show took clear inspiration from Osher’s travels to Tanzania, giving her source material for the animals and the pastoral settings they inhabit.

After a short viewing and socializing period with light snacks, carbonated water, and assorted wines provided, Osher introduced her latest exhibition. Whimsical acrylic on canvas works and monotypes were arranged below 34 wood photo-circles that Osher took on her pocket-sized digital camera. This was her first time featuring her photography in this gallery, and the works stood in stark contrast with her other pieces because of their small size, precise detail, and circular design. Osher remembered thinking, “Well, it sounds like fun” when deciding to include the photographs in the show. This attitude perfectly embodied the role they played in the display. Somewhat thematically disparate from the rest of the works and displaying more contrast and smaller scale than the paintings, they are a whimsical addition

“Crescendo” by Marian Osher

used with permission from the artist, monotype

that was fun, but forced audiences to circle the room twice—once for the paintings, and once for the photographs.

During her gallery talk, Osher was open about her artistic process, explaining in detail how she works with background music, and revealed Pink Floyd and the Grateful Dead as major inspirations in her process. Osher delved into her techniques for both the photo circles and the monotypes, explaining how she visualized the pieces and worked towards them by experimenting with her technique. She wanted to eliminate a glass barrier between the viewer and her photographs, so she used a UV-inhibiting spray to protect the works, which were printed on archival paper.

Her monotypes also required complicated preparation; using water-soluble STABILO Tones, which look like large crayons, Osher drew out her scenes on mylar, and then transferred them to dampened paper with her etching press. She added final touches with brushes and what looked like watercolor pencils. The effort of her process translates into deceptively straightforward artwork, but which has a depth and vividness of color that is not usually achieved with simple watercolors.

Osher’s monotypes are semi-impressionistic vignettes of the Tanzanian savannah, which she encountered on a recent safari trip. The works are vivid and idyllic, displaying the relaxed power of the lion, the tame playfulness of the velvet monkey, and the endearing clumsiness of the elephant. The works employ a unique sense of depth due to warping in the paper, which seems to have been coaxed along the outlines of the animals with subtle watercolor pencil strokes. The acrylic-on-canvas works are similarly themed, and reflect Osher’s pleasant view of nature. “Here’s Looking at You,” which depicts two side-by side zebras, is one of Osher’s most visually engaging works, and requires extra focus so that the viewer can distinguish the two zebras, directly reflecting the purpose of the animal’s stripes.

Two STABLIO Tones works, “Crescendo” and “Rhapsody,” stand out from the others as large, Georgia O’Keeffe-esque flower macros. Their vibrant reds and pinks more closely reflect the colors of the photo-circles but focus more on the flowers’ texture and the way that the flowers’ petals intersect. The close-up view makes the flowers semi-abstract compositions, and draws the viewer into the flowers.

The exhibition’s grand opening, which featured remarks from Osher regarding her artistic process and thoughts about her works, was well-attended, with both close friends and family making appearances alongside local residents who knew about the gallery or had seen Osher’s works at one of her many shows around the world. The audience was impressed with the works and enjoyed the wisecracks Osher delivered throughout her speech. She stayed throughout the opening, greeting friends and welcoming newcomers.

“To me, art is about connecting,” Osher told the packed gallery, “WILD About Spring expresses my respect and appreciation for diversity … Let us celebrate the vibrance of our diversity in life and in art.” What would usually have been a conciliatory message has taken on new meaning in this political climate, but Osher’s works are altogether inoffensive, and bring a calm sense of purity to the changing of seasons.

WILD About Spring will be on display until April 29 at the Washington Printmakers Gallery.

by Gustav Honl-Stuenkel

15

THE GEORGETOWN VOICE

LEISURE

Gifted:

A Disjointed and Emotional Journey IMDB

The opening shots of Gifted resemble a sunny home video documenting the first day of school. Seven-year-old Mary Adler (McKenna Grace) scowls over her breakfast at her bearded and rumpled uncle Frank (Chris Evans) as a one-eyed cat lounges nearby. The cinematography is light and airy, and the dynamic between Grace and Evans is undeniably charming. Though the film is later riddled with meandering plotlines and mismatched sequences, its strength lies in the simple scenes—especially those between Grace and Evans. The dynamic cast propels the movie forward and creates an emotionally satisfying experience, despite the film’s unfocused nature.

Gifted marks director Marc Webb’s return to smaller projects from his previous works, 2012’s The Amazing Spider-Man and its sequel, but the return is not extremely successful.

Perhaps Webb has not completely left behind his Hollywood habits, since instances of overdramatization and predictability can be found in this family drama. There is nothing significant or innovative about Webb’s style, and the drawn-out storyline of Gifted detracts from its potential for a greater emotional impact.

The film follows child math prodigy Mary Adler and her family’s battle over her upbringing and education. Frank insists that his niece have the opportunity to be a kid, leading him to turn down a scholarship for Mary at a prestigious school for “gifted” students. His humble means and living conditions draw concern from his mother Evelyn (Lindsay Duncan), who wants full custody of Mary. Throughout the film, Frank’s rationale for attempting to give Mary a normal life in spite of her remarkable talent becomes clear: the looming memory of Diane (Mary’s mother and Frank’s sister) serves as a reminder of the price of greatness. Diane, a renowned and celebrated mathematician, took her life when Mary was a baby. Though dead, Diane continues to influence the family’s decisions regarding the care of her daughter.

At its core, Gifted does a fine job depicting the conflict that both Frank and Evelyn face.

During one of the many court sequences, Evelyn makes a convincing case as for why Mary should be her responsibility. The resources and tutors that Evelyn could provide would ensure that Mary’s genius would not go wasted. However, Frank’s arguments are also persuasive. He cites Diane’s isolation and total immersion in mathematics as possible factors for her troubled state of mind.

Lindsay Duncan’s portrayal of Evelyn is perhaps the most noteworthy performance, displaying the complexity of Evelyn’s situation and adding dimensions to her seemingly cold

personality. In court, Evelyn passionately defends herself from the lawyer’s attacks on her parenting styles, stating that her relationship with Diane “transcended the mother-daughter norms.” Evelyn saw Diane not only as a daughter, but also as an individual with the capacity to change the field of mathematics and impact countless lives.

Grace’s portrayal of Mary Adler is unexpectedly believable. The 10-year-old actress is able to capture Mary’s frustration and fear in losing her uncle, as well as the excitement in exploring the new world her grandmother has presented to her. Evans also deserves praise for his depiction of the quiet and conflicted uncle, which perfectly compliments Grace’s portrayal of Mary. It is refreshing to see him shed his Captain America persona in favor for a much more emotionally complex and dynamic character. His chemistry with Jenny Slate, who plays Mary’s teacher, lends a humorous and romantic element to the film. The cast also includes Octavia Spencer as the friendly neighbor Roberta—who happens to be Mary’s best friend. Though Spencer is a minor character, her late-night lip sync sessions with Mary are hard to forget.

Despite the stellar group of actors, Gifted clearly has trouble achieving a cohesive structure.

The plot is at times rambling and disconnected, especially as the story becomes unnecessarily complex in regards to Diane’s history. Webb’s irregular use of tragedy and family comedy only serves to further highlight the disjointed nature of the film. Although some scenes are genuinely moving, like the one in which Frank leaves Mary, other sequences seem forced and contrived. It is easy to notice Webb’s attempt at creating a moving scene in the sequence where Frank brings Mary to the hospital to observe other families celebrating the birth of their child.

The scene’s blatant use as an emotional provocation and its general lack of contribution to the plot detracts from the natural sentimentality of the movie.

Although Gifted may not be a momentous success, it has its merits. The chemistry that Grace and Evans are able to establish between their characters is perhaps the highlight of the film. There are some truly touching moments between Mary and her family members, which effectively highlight the complex sentiments that Frank and Evelyn are experiencing.

When Frank walks away from a sobbing Mary after placing her in the care of a foster family, there is likely no dry eye in the house. While Webb may have overcompensated in his efforts at making a sensitive movie, Gifted represents his promising return to more complex and profound projects.

By Mary Mei

Keeho Kang