Voices

“You shouldn’t tell women what to do with their body. It’s just like saying you can’t have tattoos and piercing.”

— Dena Rosa a problem for students with sources given to them, as citing is just an exercise to practice for future use.

But for most students, creating a works cited page can become increasingly difficult as they need to look for sources they can access and read, without encountering five different pop ups.

When looking for an article to use for, say, an essay, I would usually use Google Scholar. But even when looking through completely academic papers, the bulk of the information I find is kept behind a payment wall, with a free abstract that summarizes the article, but provides no actual evidence that I can cite in my paper to support my argument.

Students need full access to academic journal articles but are locked out because of the capitalistic need to gate keep research unless paid to be unlocked.

As we move into the digital age, it may be hard for academic journals and newspapers to keep up with revenue as the amount people are willing to pay for a physical subscription to these sources drops.

Even The Atlantic has said that these outlets are looking for a way to make up the lost money through their paywalls. But they also said that publishers use tradition as a way to explain it away as well.

They publish their academic articles at a cost so they don’t have to charge their authors who work based on grant money and not as a job, but to get a job after being published.

For academics working toward getting a job in their field, which requires them to be published in a journal, their research should not have to be bought to be accessed.

Even then, the article isn’t actually in the possession of the person who bought access to it.

It’s only serving as a kind of ticket to view the article. If the account, or the ticket, is lost then that person can no longer access that article, and would need to pay again to see it.

“The

Ryan Hiscocks

The multiverse head-trip “Everything Everywhere All At Once” swept five of six major categories of the Academy Awards on March 12. Less than 10 years after #OscarsSoWhite, the undeniable talents of Michelle Yeoh, Ke Huy Quan and Daniel Kwan were invited on stage and awarded with gold.

Michelle Yeoh said her Oscar represented, “a beacon of hope” to children who “look like” her. Earlier, Ke Huy Quan proclaimed, “This is the American Dream!” The gratitude expressed for our country’s defining industries on its important night should have come as no surprise.

The U.S. film industry has been our most beloved exports. Immigrants regularly confess their expectations of life in the U.S. were shaped by the stories watched at their local theaters.

The American Dream for many is a reflection of the American screen. This places the film industry square in the middle of our current politics of inclusion. Since the end of WWII, the U.S. economy has been the largest. Industries in our country inherited, and continue, our legacy of racial and sexual discrimination.

Michelle Yeoh is the second woman of color to win Best Actress in a Leading Role and she was presented her award by the first woman of color to earn that honor, Halle Barry.

At its heart, the American Dream is no more complicated than the economic ambition of our futures. It is limitless aspiration shaped by the immense size of our economy.

It is the intrinsic opportunity to take part in a commercial ecosystem creating over $23 trillion of value annually. The living embodiment of this optimism is the fact that millions of people try to move here to live peacefully and work hard.

The reality of the American Dream and the opportunities that are denied is a complex issue. The denial of opportunity was front and center at the Academy Awards in 2015 when no person of color was nominated for best actor in any category, resulting in the #OscarsSoWhite.

The widespread belief that immigrants, especially those who are undocumented, are taking economic opportunity away from native born Americans is a driving narrative of our immigration debate.

This line of reasoning was best represented in the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump, who promised to build a wall that Mexico will pay for.

During the awards, three winners with family tracing back to Hong Kong, Taiwan and Vietnam showed another side of immigration.

99% of Americans have a family history that starts somewhere else and aside from our Native American population, we all come from immigrants. To deny immigrants of our “pursuit of happiness,” would embrace an unjust hypocrisy.

As I say to my students, “we will have a very real problem when no one is trying to come here.”

What are your thoughts on laws surrounding women’s bodily rights?

“Using religion to outlaw shouldn’t be a reason to dictate

“This shouldn’t be up to the court or any individual other than the woman.”

— Andrew Murphy

“Everyone with a uterus is oppressed. It’s heart-breaking to lose but we will keep fighting.” — Chimera Mohammadi

“The government wants to assert their political agendas. Abortion helps women and this law goes against it.”

— Jeffrey Bui

“I am not in favor! You can’t make laws based on religion. This law contradicts religion. It’s all about control.”

— Dabney Lyons