1 0 . 0 9 . 1 4
I ns i de : Comme nt s , Conc e r ns , a nd Compl a i nt s
10.09.14 VOL. XLVI, NO. 5
10.09.14
Inside: Comments, Concerns, and Complaints
The Indy is probably calming down next week. Cover design by Anna Papp
CONTENTS FORUM 3 An Open Letter to Harvard 4 Privilege: Q&A 5 Yes and No 6 Looking Beyond the Text NEWS 7 A Talk about Israel ARTS 8 Arrgh, Music 9 Unplugged SPORTS 10 Bottom of the Barrel 11 Hard Hits
DESTINATION OF THE WEEK: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
President Albert Murzakhanov '16 Editor-in-Chief Sean Frazzette '16 Director of Production Anna Papp '16 News Editor Forum Editor Arts Editor Sports Editor Associate Sports Editor Associate Forum Editor Associate Arts Editor
Milly Wang '16 Caroline Gentile '17 Sarah Rosenthal '15 Shaquilla Harrigan '16 Peyton Fine '17 Aditya Agrawal '17 Michael Luo '16
Illustrator Yaara Yacoby '17 Designer Alice Linder '17 Business Managers Farhana Nabi '16 Manik Bhatia '16 Staff Writers Whitney Gao '16 Manik Bhatia '16 Terilyn Chen '16 Yuqi Hou '15 Chloe Li '16 Dominique Luongo '17 Orlea Miller '16 Albert Murzhakanov '16 Carlos Schmidt '15 Frank Tamberino '16 Jackie Leong '16 Andrew Lin '17 Madi Taylor '16 Shreya Vardhan '17 Peyton Fine '17 Michael Luo '16 Eloise Lynton '17 Caroline Cronin '18
As Harvard College's weekly undergraduate newsmagazine, the Harvard Independent provides in-depth, critical coverage of issues and events of interest to the Harvard College community. The Independent has no political affiliation, instead offering diverse commentary on news, arts, sports, and student life. For publication information and general inquiries, contact President Albert Murzakhanov (president@harvardindependent.com). Letters to the Editor and comments regarding the content of the publication should be addressed to Editor-in-Chief Sean Frazzette (editorinchief@ harvardindependent.com). For email subscriptions please email president@harvardindependent. com. The Harvard Independent is published weekly during the academic year, except during vacations, by The Harvard Independent, Inc., Student Organization Center at Hilles, Box 201, 59 Shepard Street, Cambridge, MA 02138. Copyright Š 2014 by The Harvard Independent. All rights reserved.
Forum
indy
An Open Letter to Harvard
Unapologetic and refusing to remain silent. By ANONYMOUS
Note: This article was submitted to the Harvard Independent anonymously by a group of students who care deeply about not only about Asian and American students at Harvard, but also about opening up a greater dialogue on race relations at Harvard. This article is also published in Manifesta Magagazine. If you would like to comment on this article please email editorinchief@ harvardindependent.com.
T
his weekend, current Harvard College students and recent alumni received racially charged e-mail death threats from an unknown sender who has continued to contact individuals over the past few days. While recipients of the threats ranged in identity and background, a disproportionate number of these e-mails targeted Asian and Asian American women across years, student groups, and ethnic backgrounds. Signed off with “I promise you, slit-eyes,” the email invokes racist language clearly and outrageously targeted towards Asian Americans. As an Asian American community, we are deeply affected by this act of hate that unnerved many of our closest friends, community members, and family members. Our discomfort is heightened in learning that this act was not an isolated incident but the result of many months of data mining: For many recipients of the death threats, this sender has sent multiple spam e-mails, Facebook requests and messages, and LinkedIn requests. Moreover, this sender has taken on the persona of several members of our community, sending out links of personal social media sites to strangers. Despite the virulent racism and violence contained in these messages, however, we have been disappointed in the official response to this incident. In the four emails sent by HUPD Public Information Officer Stephen Catalano, none mentioned the anti-Asian sentiment of the emails or that they had primarily been sent to Asian and Asian American women. In fact, the administration edited an email from the organizers of Perspectives, the panAsian American and Pacific Islander town hall that was postponed due to the threats. In forwarding the message to the Harvard community, the administration purposefully cut out the organizers’ reference to the specifically racist and misogynist nature of the emails. By not including this essential information,
HUPD and the university minimized our community’s horror and confusion at receiving these messages, and put Asian and Asian American students in danger by withholding the knowledge that the threat had been directed at them. We also reject the simplistic treatment of this incident as something that can be taken back, as suggested by the sender of the email to the Crimson, or something that does not represent a “credible threat,” as Officer Catalano expressed in yesterday’s communication to the Harvard community. Make no mistake. Sending hate speech and death threats to members of our community was an act of violence in and of itself. It was an act of terror meant to make certain students, marked by their race and gender, fearful of their lives when they should be free to learn and grow in this environment equal to any
the media, which has historically misquoted and misrepresented members our community, is troubling since we do not know what information to trust. We call on the Office of Sexual and GenderBased Dispute Resolution (ODR) to address these acts of violence against Asian and Asian American women and to investigate how to preserve our online security while continuing to listen to student and survivor feedback on the new sexual assault policy. For an office supposedly established to address sexual and gender-based harassment, ODR has been stunningly quiet about this obvious incident of gender-based violence. We call on the university at large to develop clear and consistent bias reporting mechanisms for all those in the Harvard community who face discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, class, religion, and ability status, which includes physical and mental health. A score of other schools--Loyola, Georgetown, Washington University, Cornell, and more--already have systems for reporting micro- and macro- aggressions students face inside and outside the classroom. Harvard has no such system in place. As members of a concerned community, we demand an accessible and robust system which will enable underrepresented minorities to challenge the discrimination we face on Harvard’s campus. Even if Harvard’s administration would prefer to avoid addressing systems of oppression as they affect student life, we as people of color cannot ignore this reality in our daily lives. This difficult time for our community reminds us of the need to reach out those around us. At the same time, it inspires us to work on behalf of our community and to find strength in one another.
“We are unapologetic for being afraid, for being angry, for feeling resentful, for being at Harvard, and most of all - for demanding better.”
The Harvard Independent • 10.09.14
one of their peers. And, it makes painfully obviously that Harvard is not an institution that erases barriers of gender, race, and other aspects of identity; rather, it is a place where Asian and Asian American women still struggle for ownership in the classroom, in social spaces, walking down the street, their careers, and basically all facets of life. We call on the Harvard University Police Department and the Harvard administration to continue its work with those affected to ensure the person responsible for these acts of threatening hate speech is brought to justice. Even today, people were still receiving emails from this individual, which is completely unacceptable. We need this to stop but we also understand that if current reports are accurate, the people sending these emails have too been affected by racism and trauma. We want to see not just punitive, but supportive solutions that include anti-racist education and mental health counseling rather than overbearing and harmful policing. HUPD and the University should be providing clear and consistent communications about new findings to the email recipients, recipients’ family members, and members of the Asian and Asian American community. Finding out recent developments through
We, as Asian Americans, refuse to apologize for who we are or for our existence. We are unapologetic. We are unapologetic for being afraid, for being angry, for feeling resentful, for being at Harvard, and most of all - for demanding better. In Support and Solidarity,
Concerned members of the Harvard Asian American community
harvardindependent.com
3
Forum
Struggling with Privilege: Part 2 A Chat with Nick Barber. By ANONYMOUS
R
ecently, a friend of mine, Nick Barber, wrote an opinion piece for the Harvard Crimson titled “Struggling with Privilege.” Within the article, he discusses his observation that Harvard students of similar socioeconomic groups, especially the most elite, tend to stick together. The article had a strong following on Facebook; his post has over 200 likes, 21 shares, 22 comments, and has additionally been posted by many of his friends. It seems as though recently, the most popular or controversial articles from the Crimson bombard my newsfeed, and Nick’s piece was no exception. Most people agree that the article did not necessarily present new information, but instead, simply got people talking about a subject that can cause discomfort. I met with Nick to further discuss the content of the article and the responses it generated. Q: So Nick, what inspired you to write this article? Was there something specific someone said or did? NB: I was inspired to write this article coming down the home stretch of last year (my freshman year). I think it took a whole year of experience with the social scene here at Harvard to really start understanding and come to terms with what was happening, and furthermore, that nobody wanted to talk about it. But no single experience or person was the cause of my ideas or article. However, I did have a very important conversation with a good friend who is now a senior (who I know from home in New York City). My conversation with her helped me crystalize some of less formulated feelings about this NYC social dynamic.
Q: Do you think that the wealth inequality is greater at Harvard than at other schools/places? Or do people simply show it more here? NB: I don't think wealth inequality is greater at Harvard than any of its peer institutions. In an earlier draft of the article, I quoted one of my best friends from home who now goes to Northwestern University. He said there too students of privilege stick together. But I think Harvard has a very high concentration of very privileged people (especially when compared to less selective colleges and other places in America), just because of the nature of the admissions process. I think we can clearly see a phenomenon that occurs throughout the country because of the makeup of the Harvard class, and, more generally, the social dynamics of college.
Q: So my high school’s motto is “Be worthy of your heritage.” You say, “If I got here because of the advantages afforded me by my background (heritage), then what does that say about my worthiness?” Could you say that you simply need to show worthiness of your background so you don’t need to feel “self doubt”?
more directly, being worthy of your own heritage is absolutely something to strive for (i.e. I shouldn't waste the greater opportunities I was afforded), but it's not something that you yourself worked for. You were dealt a better hand than some of your classmates. Thus, when you succeed, it sometimes feels like it means less. That’s the point I'm trying to make.
Q: Many of the comments from this article reference finals clubs and the privileges that they have and give. NB: The Final Club angle to this whole article has been incredibly interesting. I don't mention final clubs at all in my article, but everyone seems to assume that I directly address them (some people from Final Clubs who I talked to also seemed to think this also). So maybe, if we're trying to become more "socially responsible citizens," as I say in my article, Final Clubs are not the place to do it. Or, at the very least, they weren't the place that I thought I could do it. I think Final Clubs are definitely complicit in this social dynamic. I think they're more of a symptom then a cause. Do I think that doing away with Final Clubs would solve our problems with confronting privilege? Probably not. Might it help make for a more inclusive, healthier social scene? Absolutely.
Q: How do you suggest Harvard ameliorate this issue? Should we call it an “issue” or is just a state? NB: I think that's definitely where you get to the tricky part. I think having a college dean like Rakesh Khurana is a step in the right direction. So much of what we hear from the college is about academic success: how do we grow intellectually (the Gen-Ed program and all of those kind of liberal arts ideas)? I think there is often a vacuum of voices from the college encouraging this kind of personal/social development. I also think there are examples of places where the college lacks sensitivity about how to avoid this wealth stratification. One example is the Dorm Crew pre-orientation programming. I think preorientation programming is incredibly important. It's great to get to know people in a smaller community setting before the daunting "opening days". I met my current roommate on my FOP trip. Dorm Crew, however, seems to predetermine this socially stratified dynamic. Financial aid for programs like FOP is limited, and many of the students who do Dorm Crew are doing it to make some extra money that those from privilege don't necessarily need. I think dorm crew as a job during the year totally makes sense; it's a good job to get around campus. However, having it as a pre-orientation program seems to set us up for failure in creating an inclusive socioeconomic social dynamic. The main takeaway from my article is that, individually, we each need to do some soul-searching. Are we challenging ourselves personally and socially? Are we branching out? But like I said earlier, I don't think it's just a Harvard problem; it happens everywhere. Anonymous hopes this interview will expand the discussion.
NB: The point I'm making in that quote is that there are students at this school, who have achieved incredible things (I mean they got into Harvard!) with less of the opportunities that I had. That is to say, when I compare my own accomplishments to their accomplishments, I feel this sense of selfdoubt. I think for most people, whether they admit it or not, seeing classmates who have made it here with a lot less than they did (home resources, school resources, etc.) makes you question your own abilities. To answer your question
4
harvardindependent.com
10.09.14 • The Harvard Independent
Forum
indy
Oh Yes! Changing the Language of Consent. By SHAQUILLA HARRIGAN
B
efore I begin my argument for the inclusion for affirmative (enthusiastic) consent in Harvard's new Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment Policy, I want to be incredibly clear that I am writing as an ally to survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment. I want in no way for my discussions to replace the lived experiences of others, nor do I want to simply a deeply complex issue that requires a complete reformation of our societal structures. My only hope is that this piece adds to current conversations and pushes for greater sex positivity and equity among all genders. I also want to add that I am writing as a straight cisgender woman, so I apologize for any inherent heternormative perspective of this article; I will try to be as inclusive as possible. While I am incredibly happy with all of the changes Harvard has made in regards to gender and sexual violence on campus, I still view this process as an open conversation that needs more discussion. As the leading university on many fronts, including being the first university to hire a Title IX coordinator and have an office dedicated to sex and gender-based dispute resolution, it is troubling that despite all of these changes, we still lacking an affirmative consent clause. Harvard's current definition of sexual harassment is as follows: "Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, including unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, graphic, or physical conduct of a sexual nature... Conduct is unwelcome if a person (1) did not request or invite it and (2) regarded the unrequested or uninvited conduct as undesirable or offensive." This definition of "unwelcomeness" is troubling for two major reasons. First of all, the term "unwelcomeness" is incredibly vague and leaves a lot of gray area when trying to gain justice for the survivor. Second, this definition does not lend it self to the ideals of sexual positivity. The current dialogue surrounding sexual harassment and other gender crimes seems to leave a lot of room for gray areas. This puts a greater burden on the survivor to make their case to oncampus and in formal legal institutions. Vague references like "unwelcomeness" unfortunately cast a shadow of doubt on whatever a survivor says. Unwelcomeness as the adjudicating factor, in my opinion, can quickly devolve into a form of victim blaming. I also feel like the definition of
The Harvard Independent • 10.09.14
unwelcomeness in situations where alcohol and drugs might be involved offers little comfort and support for victims. Currently, the University policy reads thusly: "In addition, when a person is so impaired or incapacitated as to be incapable of requesting or inviting the conduct, conduct of a sexual nature is deemed unwelcome. A Respondent’s impairment at the time of the incident as a result of drugs or alcohol does not, however, diminish the Respondent’s responsibility for sexual or gender-based harassment under this Policy." While the policy does say that drugs or alcohol won't impact how a person's claim is handled, I still feel like prevailing dialogue surrounding cognitive impairment and sexual assault is stigmatized. This is where affirmative, or enthusiastic, consent would make a better policy in terms of deciding what "counts" or "doesn't count" as sexual harassment. Generally, enthusiastic consent is the idea that two people affirmatively agree what types of sexual contact they would like to engage in. Affirmative consent isn't a blanket "yes" situation; partners must engage each other and continually check-in with what activities are okay to engage in. In my opinion, this type of sexual behavior addresses my two main problems with "unwelcomeness." Regarding ambiguity, affirmative consent allows for partners to know physically and verbally what their partners want sexually. People will make it their responsibility to know whether or not their advances are wanted. The constant communication lessens the chance of one party misinterpreting (or even ignoring) their partner's request. This significantly reduces the gray area of unwelcomeness. In addition, affirmative consent makes sex and sexuality a positive experience. More emphasis will be placed on what each person wants. Instead of saying, "No, don't do that," I think that affirmative consent changes the sentence to say, "Yes, I like that" or "Yes, do that to me." This sounds like both parties have agency over their bodies and agency over what happens with their bodies. Affirmative consent also allows partners to get to know each other better because they are learning the likes and dislikes of their sexual partners. While I am a proponent of affirmative consent, I do want to acknowledge (and hopefully debunk) some of the oppositional arguments. One of the
main arguments against affirmative consents is how it can be "awkward" to ask each step of the way. It is very concerning that this is an argument against affirmative consent because it speaks to how messed up our existing dialogue on sex and sexual relationships really is. It shouldn't be awkward to want to know that your partner(s) want you as much as you want them. It shouldn't be awkward that you want to know that your partner is enjoying each and everything you are doing with them. It should NOT be more okay to do what you think your partner wants because it 'ruins the flow' of the moment. Sex and sexual relationships occur between at least two people and therefore all voices should have a say in what happens sexually. Talking about our sexuality and the things that make us feel good shouldn't be shameful. The second argument against affirmative consent also involves situations where alcohol or drugs are involved. Being able to enthusiastically agree to sexual advances seems to imply full cognitive control. I mean, it is a fact that alcohol and drugs do limit inhibitions. Honestly, I don't have a perfect answer to this, but I still think that affirmative consent should always come first. If people are doubtful of their partner's actually ability to give affirmative consent, then they should not engage in sexual acts. My primary concern with affirmative consent is that people should have active control over their decisions. I know that isn't a full answer, but it is the only one that I can offer in this limited forum. In closing, I argue for affirmative consent because I think it will provide more justice for survivors and because it has a greater chance of shifting our current dialogue on sex and sexuality to a more positive space. I know this article was an incredibly brief argument on affirmative consent's behalf, I do hope, like I stated at the beginning, that this article adds to and continues the dialogue for greater sex positivity and equity between all genders. Shaquilla Harrigan '16 (sharrigan01@college) hopes that more students learn about Harvard's new policies and pushes Harvard to do even better.
harvardindependent.com
5
Forum
Love in Leviticus A message to those opposing marriage equality. By ANONYMOUS
A
s an atheist, I couldn’t care less if you practice a religion and are very God, God created them; male and female God created them." (Genesis 1:27) If devoted to your faith. It is your undeniable right to practice any faith God created humans in His own image, then each human has been born the you wish. Even though you might think it’s weird if I came up to you way God intended. and said, “I still love you despite the fact that you’re religious,” I am totally Homosexuality is in fact unnatural. But using that logic so is having sex for used to and not really offended — though not particularly thrilled either — pleasure. Next time you’re in church after having a good session of premarital when you tell me that you love me despite me being gay. Thanks, bud. The sex, please take a moment to reflect on your own sins instead of attacking me thing is I don’t really care too much whether you love or hate my lifestyle, for mine. But in all seriousness, even if you have followed every rule in the but I do care if you try to use your religious freedom to impede my rights as Bible, unless you intend to proclaim that couples who have had premarital a citizen. If you want to think in your own head that I am committing a sin, sex are also prohibited from getting married, don’t state a gay couple cannot that’s fine, but when you try to tell me I can’t marry the person I love then get married without expecting to be called a bigot and a hypocrite. we have a problem. I guess you’re also entitled to be racist or sexist, but you can’t bring those opinions to the policies you make. Why? Because you’re not Anonymous will love whomever they decide to love. a deity and have no right to prescribe righteousness. Rant aside, let’s take a look at the infamous line in Leviticus. “Leviticus is a book of the Bible that focuses on Leviticus is a book of the Bible that focuses on regulations and rules, but it regulations and rules, but it is not a book that talks is not a book that talks about love or the proper definitions of families. However, about love or the proper definitions of families. it is used by many people are the moral reasoning for their opposition to same- However, it is used by many people are the moral sex marriage. “If a man lies with a male as one lies reasoning for their opposition to same-sex marriage.” with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death—their bloodguilt is upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13) Although the Bible only explicitly refers to a man lying with another man, we generalize the statement to apply to both gay women and men. It is also significant to note the context of the law above. It is listed among laws that pertain to promiscuity and adultery (e.g.: If a man lies with his father's wife, if a man lies with his daughter‐in‐law, etc.) rather than under regulations that define an ideal or proper family. There are no verses in the Bible that demonstrate God’s disapproval of monogamous homosexual couples or God’s urging for others to judge gay people. As mentioned earlier, Leviticus refers to the law banning homosexuality among other laws that describe promiscuity. Leviticus also writes about sins such as this, “You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.” As stated by the group, Views on LGBT equality, “Leviticus approaches homosexual relationships as necessarily promiscuous, and possibly oppressive, because they never occurred in the context of loving families. The intent of these laws, then, is to forbid promiscuous relationships. Because the Torah does not directly address the issue of loving, monogamous, homosexual couples, we must turn to the more general ethical framework of the Torah for guidance.” Further, Genesis states, "God created humans in God's image, in the image of
6
harvardindependent.com
10.09.14 • The Harvard Independent
News
indy
The Not-So-Subtle Anti-Semitism of Today Why Israel’s existence should be a concern for By A JEW IN THE CLASS OF 2016
“It is language, after all, that’s at the heart of the ubiquitous slippage from anger at Israeli military action to hatred of Jews.” – Deborah Lipstadt, New York Times
A
t the beginning of March 2013, the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee made the decision to distribute notices to college students on campus that read, “We regret to inform you that your suite is scheduled for demolition in the next three days.” Although the PSC denied sending this eviction notice to only people with “Jewish-sounding” last names, some suites received the notice while others did not. It was meant to be a reference to the group’s views of how Israel is supposedly treating Palestinian citizens. In the “DeadIn” hosted by the PSC last week, one person held a poster that read, “It’s not about religion, it’s about humanity.” The event was meant to commemorate the victims in the Gaza-Israel conflict, and it is completely justified to commemorate these tragic deaths and the loss of innocent life. However, none of the Jewish/ Israeli victims’ names were read out loud, and if it is in fact about humanity, are the Jewish victims less human? Even if Israeli policy is to blame, are the Jewish victims guilty as well? The problem with these insensitive actions is that, although the PSC claims they do not aim to alienate Jews, Jews end up being targeted regardless of whether they unconditionally support or criticize Israel. This has not been an issue confined within Harvard but one facing Jews all across the world today. Of course, anti-Semitism — hostility to or prejudice against Jews — and criticism of Israel are two completely different issues, but the fact of the matter is the two get intertwined far too often. Over the past year, Europe has been encroached by waves of anti-Semitism in which Europe’s Jews have been attacked for Israel’s conflict with Gaza. During a protest in Paris, a synagogue was attacked and there were chants of “Jews to the gas chambers.” In Sarcelles, a commune in the northern suburbs of Paris, “death to the Jews” was shouted as a kosher market was looted. In Brussels, a synagogue was bombed, and four civilians were murdered in a Jewish museum. This past July, pro-Gaza protesters on Kurfürstendamm, the legendary avenue in Berlin, chanted “Jews, Jews, cowardly swine.” Demonstrators in Dortmund and Frankfurt screamed, “Hamas, Hamas; Jews to the gas!” In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has asked that Turkish Jews apologize for the actions of Israel. Unfortunately, the list of violence in
The Harvard Independent • 10.09.14
the past year or even over the summer is far more extensive. In none of these cases was it solely Israeli officials or even Israeli-supporters who were criticized but rather Jews, who were attacked as a whole. Aside from blatant physical attacks, people have made comparisons between Nazi Germany and Israel, equating the death of 12 million people, 6 million of whom were Jewish to the deaths in Gaza. Undoubtedly, innocent people died on both occasions, but making such a comparison is both ignorant and factually inaccurate. A genocide of millions cannot be paralleled to a war fought by two sides. There is no justification for it. Prior to the Holocaust, Israel did not exist, but pure unjustified hatred for the Jewish people led to a massacre of millions. Jews in Britain prior to World War II and the Holocaust would take a stance of appeasement when it came to the creation of the Jewish state. At that time, some Jews were diehard Zionists who wanted a safe state for Jews while others, usually more affluent ones, were against Zionism because they wanted to be seen as British Jews and not Jews that lived in Britain. I think a big part of that decision was that life was great for them in Britain. It was calm, and they were living well. They were worried that if they fought for Israel and it didn’t come to be, they would be seen as ungrateful to Britain. They would become outsiders in a country that already wasn’t their own because they were fighting for another place to live. So it was easier to say no to Israel. After all, if things were going well, why change them and risk losing everything? Unfortunately, history did not end up on their side. When push came to shove, Jews, wealthy and poor, were sent to the gas chambers, and whether they were for or against a Jewish state was not a concern of Nazis. Regardless of the country a Jew inhabits today, he/she cannot forget the importance of Israel, for it holds value for every Jew in the dias-
pora. The Anti-Semitism we see now is nowhere near what we saw in the 1930s, thankfully. So why talk about it? In 2014, almost seventy years since the Holocaust, the Jews of Europe no longer feel safe. The Holocaust is not approaching, but the flames of anti-Semitism are far from being put out. Harvard’s Palestine Solidarity Committee reminded Jews of this last year in an attempt to incite feelings of guilt on what our state is doing. The intention of this article is not to make all Jews diehard supporters of Israel because Israel, like any and every nation, is not a pillar of perfection. But it is important for Jews to realize that regardless of which part of the world they inhabit, the existence of Israel should be an issue of concern. Israel is a Jewish State. It will always remain one. Less than 0.2% of the world is Jewish. Whether safe or unsafe, Jews will always be outsiders in the Diaspora and should think strongly before deciding that Israel need not exist or that its well-being does not align with their own. Anonymous is concerned with the situation and wants some sort of peaceful discourse to be started.
harvardindependent.com
7
Watch Party
Stop recording the concert.
By ANDREW ADLER
K
indly stop doing it. Instead of capturing a moment for later enjoyment, enjoy the moment, now, while it’s happening. Look, I love watching recordings of live performances from my favorite artists, but only when these recordings are done by professionals. If a professionally recorded live performance of your favorite song isn’t on Youtube, it’s not there for a reason. The artist didn’t want it publicly released. Have you ever searched for a live performance of a song only to find some grainy, nausea-inducing video taken by someone surrounded by people who won’t shut up? Yeah, it sucks. Don’t be the guy recording that video or the one putting it up on YouTube for a few hundred people to see and quickly be disappointed. To be fair, I’ve enjoyed the benefit of cellphone recordings plenty of times. For example, during Arcade Fire’s massive Reflektor tour, the Canadian crew would perform covers of songs that had special significance to the city in which they were performing. It was cool seeing Arcade Fire perform R.E.M.’s “Radio Free Europe” and Boyz II Men’s “Motownphilly.” It was also cool seeing a recording of Chance the Rapper performing an unreleased song with Jeremih in Chicago. But I didn’t pay to go to these events. If the artists want to release recordings of these special live performances, then that is their prerogative. On a more selfish level, I don’t want to end up in a recording at a concert. I, along with other concertgoers, exercise the right to dance and sing like a moron enthralled by the band playing in front of me. Please don’t record me. I understand another major reason for pulling out your phone at a concert; you need to show off your impeccable taste to your social media buddies. You merely want a photograph to post on Instagram that’s sure to snag plenty of likes. Going to concerts is cool. You’re cool. You want to make that clear to the social media world. That’s fine! I’m guilty of that. Just get that photo and put your phone away. Broadway plays do not permit recording of their performances, or even photographs of their sets. It’s illegal to record and distribute “bootleg” copies of movies. Why shouldn’t musical performances demand the same
8 harvardindependent.com
respect? While a concert might not be as formal as a play or as expensive to produce as a movie, a concert is still an artistic performance that deserves the same respect. People should view it the way the creator intended. Legendary indie rock band Yeah Yeah Yeahs made exactly that point. Before a performance, they tweeted a note that read “PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THE SHOW THROUGH A SCREEN ON YOUR SMART DEVICE/CAMERA. PUT THAT S--- AWAY as a courtesy to the person behind you and to Nick, Karen and Brian. MUCH LOVE AND MANY THANKS! YEAH YEAH YEAHS.” Plenty of other big name performers have expressed their disapproval of cellphones at their concerts. Jack White recently called it “distracting” and told his fans to “live in the moment.” Prince and Peter Frampton have also come out against
cell-phones at their concerts. Frampton allegedly took a fan’s cellphone and threw it into the rafters after the fan repeatedly ignored requests not to take photos. The audience supposedly applauded Frampton’s actions. On an even more extreme note, I’ve seen someone hold up an iPad at a concert more than once. Dude, not only is that incredibly rude to the person behind you, but it also makes you look like an idiot. The reasons not to record a concert on your cellphone or any other device far outweigh any enjoyment you might get from your subpar recording. Even if it’s just that one song you really love, kindly put your phone away. Andrew Adler ’17 (andrewadler@college) strives to enjoy concerts in the moment.
Photo-illustration by Anna Papp/The Harvard Independent
10.09.14 • The Harvard Independent
Musical Piracy
The difficult decision of wanting songs with limited resources. By MICHAEL LUO
D
igital media is in an age of streaming. From Spotify to Netflix, entertainment has become not something you buy and own, but rather, a limitless collection for you to pay and subscribe. With services that offer free-with-ads or paid ad-free streaming, digital entertainment has evolved into downloads in the cloud, allowing users and fans to ignore storage space in order to connect to their favorite artists, shows, and games whenever and wherever Internet exists. But even with this advancement of having the world at your fingertips, Internet piracy is still a prevalent issue. In fact, there is a high possibility that you have Googled a certain film title with “watch online” tagged at the end at some point. Others in the same category include album titles with “.rar” or “.zip” and book titles with “pdf.” The trick is finding the right tag, and you’re more likely than not to end up with what you wanted, free except for the cost of time. The more you do this, the better you get at it. Internet piracy, like almost anything else, can be an improvable skill. For instance, you might’ve heard that Harvard doesn’t like Internet piracy, so you are afraid to torrent on campus. Maybe you get around that by having friends elsewhere email you what you want. In any case, there always seems to be a workaround. As college students without stable incomes, we love the idea of getting things conveniently and for free. So we utilize the Internet in order to get what we want, and we may find ourselves in zones of questionable legality. In terms of Internet piracy, music is the most common. This can be due to a number of factors. One is that music is so portable. Though you can watch films and shows on the go, music is something you can take with you as you walk, study, work out, or even sleep without being too distracted. This versatility of music then encourages each individual to have an abundance of it. Sure, you may have a top played list of your favorite tracks, but it is arguably much easier to add more music to your library than it is to commit to another TV show or another whole movie. Because of this, music is easily exchanged between users by sending and receiving mp3 files. But music streaming is also taking a turn for corporate control. YouTube’s upcoming streaming service has already blocked indie artists who don’t agree to its contract terms, which reportedly already favor large,
The Harvard Independent • 10.09.14
established record labels. The controversy lies in that Google has the power the decrease independent label royalty rates if major record labels demand the same. Artists also lack the ability to choose which songs they want to put out on this streaming service. In essence, it is opt in your entire discography at the will of major record labels or opt out and lose your presence on YouTube entirely. As a consequence of this, music piracy becomes a complicated issue. Some people deter from purchasing songs because they are anti-corporate and believe profits from digital music find itself in the hands of the distributors instead of the artists. The rest often just don’t want to spend the money. Though buying all your music can be expensive, ripping files from the internet or someone else also doesn’t contribute to the artists’ hard work. Meanwhile, some do a mix of the two, buying only their favorites and downloading the rest, while others turn to legal streaming methods such as Spotify or Pandora to satisfy their varied tastes. For those whose music libraries range upwards to the thousands, an argument can be made for why buying music is absurd. With songs costing over a dollar these days, that budget is simply not feasible, especially for audiophiles and DJs whose music collection grows ever larger. The easy solution is to subscribe to something like Spotify for around ten bucks a month. Yet, there is still something unique about “having” and “owning” a song rather than being subscribed to it. On the technical level, owning a song means you can add it to a mix-tape and generally don’t have to rely on an application or website for it to work. Subscription depends on the availability of a connection, and sometimes, more often than you realize, it is just more convenient to have the file than not. On the other hand, the benefit for illegal downloaders of music is that these individuals are actually exposed to more music, willing to spend hours perusing the web for artists similar to their favorites and downloading their music as test trials. Sure, everyone would be better off if these people eventually paid for their downloads, but exposure and recommendation can go a long way to furthering someone’s artistic career as well. There are those who revel in huge folders of downloaded mp3 files, and there are those who feel a sense of guilt but cannot afford
to buy all their songs. For this, there is an alternative: go to concerts. While concerts are not everlasting experiences that you can take and play whenever you’d like, they are events that in fact pay off more to the artist than album sales. Even in the digital age, artists still earn more from going on tour than they do releasing albums due to the cuts production companies and labels take. Royalty checks from record labels don’t pay as much as they used to, but touring profits have risen steadily in the past decade. Moreover, the money from merchandise sold at concerts goes directly to the artists, pulling in substantial revenue for each and every t-shirt sold. The downfall to this is that you usually can’t go to a concert for every artist in your library, but selecting a few and going to those is still an honorable way of expressing your fandom and gratitude. Even if you don’t see the value of buying albums through iTunes, purchasing tickets and attending concerts can at least ensure you that you are contributing to the artist’s monetary success. So whether you prefer the ability to accumulate free music or the morality of buying everything legally, going to concerts still remains the best way to demonstrate how much you appreciate an artist’s talent and dedication. No one is sure how the music industry will transform in the next decade, and maybe free is the way to go, but for now, striking a balance between budget and accessibility can be tough. It would certainly be fantastic if everyone could purchase all the tracks they enjoyed, yet isn’t sharing music how and why artists rise to fame in the first place? In any case, the choice to spend money on music is in the hands of the fan, but saving up enough cash to attend a memorable concert is mutually beneficial for your idols and yourself. The experience is more intimate, even if you’re stuck in the nosebleed seats. Also for many artists, performing onstage is a major motivation for why they are musicians. This is always a win-win, so when that next weekend crops up with nothing to do, consider going to a concert to enjoy yourself or to revel with friends while supporting someone you admire. I’m sure you won’t regret it. Michael Luo ’16 (michaelluo@college) is excited to see Stevie Wonder in November!
harvardindependent.com
9
Sports
To Tank or Not to Tank Losing now to win later. By PEYTON FINE
T
anking: to intentionally lose to put oneself in a more advantageous position at a later time. As a sports fan, it is our sincerest desire to watch our teams succeed. Now, our definitions of success may vary. Is success watching our teams win as many games as possible? Is success seeing our teams win as many championships as possible? Is success defined by how entertaining it is to watch our teams play? I think many of us would rank winning championships as the top tier of success. If you think back to the New York Giants of 2008, we see a team who backed into the playoffs with a .500 record and relied on defense and game management to win games. They definitely were not entertaining and did not win a lot of games, yet all of us would consider those Giants as one of the most successful teams of alltime, not just because they won the Super Bowl, but also because they knocked off the unbeaten Patriots in the title game to do so. So, if success is defined by winning championships, which I think the above example illustrates best, is it acceptable to lose on purpose to achieve the ultimate goal? Is the concept of losing on purpose ever acceptable in sports? It is a question that has divided the sports world recently. As sports teams are continually managed more and more like businesses, as owners hire statisticians and business managers to manage player personnel, and as new collective bargaining agreements continually shift the balance of power in a sport, teams must always scheme for success. To borrow a term from economics, once a cost is sunk, in this case once a team proves to be unable to win a championship, losses are cut and teams start anew. Mostly, that takes the form of building for the future by increasing financial flexibility under the salary cap and acquiring younger players on cheaper contracts. But, when teams spend less money and sign less experienced players, wins will drop. To prepare for the future in the NBA, teams either look for multiple draft picks in high position, or they look to attract big name free agents by clearing the salary cap space to offer those free agents lucrative contracts. The reason this works in the NBA is because one or two players can literally change the course of a franchise. Think
what happened once the Cavaliers were able to sign LeBron James and Kevin Love. The Cavaliers went from being on the cusp of the playoffs to a title contender. How did they do this? They acquired draft picks in exchange for LeBron James once
losers.” The results — the Cubs have the top farm system in baseball and have a shining future that have baseball fans salivating over their potential. For years, the Cubs were mediocre and could not turn it around, but tanking at least gives them the talent to vault themselves into the upper echelons, like Cleveland in the NBA. Look, I get it. Sports are about winning. That’s the point of any competition. However, we are not just looking at these teams game-to-game or seasonto-season. We are looking at franchises. A franchise’s success is defined by winning championships. When people ask themselves the best team in baseball, the immediate response is the Yankees. In the NFL the answer would be the Patriots recently or the Cowboys and 49ers of the 1990’s or the Packers of the fledgling league. They all won championships. Today, as these leagues become more and more like businesses, if teams have to lose to ultimately win, I don’t care how much you hate it. I want my team to tank.
Tanking: to intentionally lose to put oneself in a more advantageous position at a later time.
10 harvardindependent.com
LeBron made it clear that he would sign with the Heat. They cut veterans in later years after his departure all to be able to lure LeBron back by throwing money at him and the possibility to play with impressive young talent. The cost was a win percentage that went from nearly 75 percent with LeBron to 32 percent without him. Is LeBron James so good that losing him costs a team half of their wins? No. No player is that good. The Cavaliers just made no effort to become good. They actively wanted to be bad. What’s the point in being ok for many years if you will never win a championship when losing for four straight years can give you the opportunity to return to the upper echelon of the league? So, the Cavs lost enough by cutting salary and trading active good players for draft picks to build for the future. It resulted in the Cavs selecting first overall in three of the five drafts without LeBron and having enough salary cap space to offer max contracts to two free agents in the same summer. The Cavaliers lineup next year will feature three All-Stars. Success has not been fully attained, but losing for four years put them closer to success than winning at an average level would have. The phenomenon of tanking, though, is not confined to basketball. The epidemic may be strongest there, but baseball may have started it all. Just about every MLB team has at least one player who could make a difference on a playoff team. At the trade deadline, any team out of the race starts selling off their players for prospects in the minor leagues. The Cubs just completed one of the most aggressive sells in the last few years. From 2011-2013 the Cubs lost more than 90 games. The Cubs only lost more than that number of games once in their 110-year history as the “loveable
Peyton Fine ’17 (peytonfine@college) understands the stigma against losing of any kind in sports. However, if it means championships at the end of it, he is totally fine with aggressive losing in the short term to win in the long term.
10.09.14 • The Harvard Independent
Sports
indy
Facing the Problem Head On Harvard must take stand on brain injuries in football By CAROLINE C. CRONIN The evidence is growing and, one might say, indisputable: the National Football League finally admitted in pleadings filed in federal court that nearly a third of retired players will likely develop long-term cognitive impairment at substantially younger ages than the general population. Following that breakthrough admission, the NFL was forced to, so to speak, put its money where its admissions are — that is, the league was forced to pay $765 million to buy a release from liability from eighteen thousand retired players that paid for medical exams and needed research. It seems clear that there is a critical connection between hard-hitting football and brain injury — after all, we can assume, can we not, that the NFL, like any corporation (i.e. which some have described as an artificially created legal person designed to prey upon real people), would rather not part with $765 million to a bunch of retirees who can no longer score touchdowns or fill stadiums? Indeed, the days of outright denial from even the staunchest football-defenders are over. This circumstance is reminiscent of the old tobacco and health wars of the 1990s when the tobacco companies spent tens of millions to dismiss oh-so-confidently any causal connection between smoking and lung cancer as mere statistics. But when the cell-changing carcinogenic connection was definitively established, the tobacco companies finally agreed to pay billions and certain lawyers bought airplanes. But those years of denial (remember the Tobacco Institute? — that tobaccocompany-sponsored laboratory that promulgated scientific “evidence” that tobacco was not harmful) cost our society many dollars and many lives. In the cold light of the NFL’s admission and settlement, any denial of the connection between football (as it is played now) and brain injury must be viewed with skepticism. And no one can legitimately underestimate the suffering that comes from brain injury. The types and severity of impairment, as described in the NFL federal litigation, are tragic. Mood and behavior disorders and cognitive impairment must be among the most painful to experience — or to watch. My grandfather played college football at Notre Dame in the 1940s — lots of hitting and leather helmets. He now spends his days meeting new people — his children — and waiting for the end. Similar stories — and likely futures — are described by NFL greats like Tony Dorsett and Jim McMahon. The NFL’s payment “settles” these stories but does not answer a fundamental question: are those that play college football (and even those who play in high school and even younger) at risk for traumatic brain injury? What really happens when a nine-year old (or a nineteen-year old) gets his “bell rung” on that run up the middle, or on that fly pattern to the end zone? After all, there are currently fewer than two thousand players in the NFL while there are almost four million kids playing youth football. So we must ask: Where is Harvard on this key The Harvard Independent • 10.09.14
Photo courtesy of Nicole Sarvis
question? Indeed, isn’t a Harvard student’s mind just as valuable as an NFL player’s? Harvard players excel — that’s how they are built — and there is no doubt that Harvard players in every field excel including the one in Harvard Stadium across the river. But if excelling on that field puts their brains at risk, shouldn’t we say something? There are those, of course, who prefer compromise. After all, this isn’t the first time that our nation has been confronted with injuries in football. One hundred years ago, football was on the verge of extinction because players were dying. President Teddy Roosevelt — Class of 1880 — forced change and quite possibly saved the game. The story goes that his son was on the Harvard frosh squad, and TR was fully motivated to protect his son and all other sons who shared a love of the “strenuous life” on the gridiron. He pushed the game to adopt protective gear and even the forward pass — and gave birth to modern football. Some say minor changes might work now — for instance, the NFL teams recently agreed to kick-off from the 35-yard line instead of the 30. Kickoffs create perhaps the most risky
conditions for concussions — moving kickoffs to the 35-yard line limits the likely number of returns and has decreased the incidence of concussions on kickoff returns. But such tweaking may not be enough. We may need another TR — another voice from Harvard to keep our classmates’ valuable brains functioning at their best for decades to come. Who better than Harvard to take on such a job? Harvard Medical School researchers have already started working with the NFL Player’s Association to do a comprehensive study on concussions. Indeed, it was not Commodus who took care of the safety of his gladiators. Nor should it be the NFL that uncovers the truth about brain injuries in football and protects our athletes.
Caroline Cronin ’18 (ccronin01@college) hopes that the great athletes at Harvard will stay safe as the season continues.
harvardindependent.com
11
D R A WN&Q U A R T E R E D
b y Y a a r a Y a c o b y