Volume 87
Thursday, November 1, 2018
Issue 7
MCLA Day of Dialogue Explores Race, Society and Culture On Nov. 8 BY MAYA MCFADDEN SENIOR NEWS EDITOR
Photo by Sophie Player
Berkshire Towers’ 24th annual Boo Bash took place on Monday in the Church Street Center. An array of treats, games and goodies were provided for children of the berkshires. See story, page 3.
MCLA will be hosting its first ever “Day of Dialogue” for the campus community to discuss its theme, “Complicating Race,” on Thursday, Nov. 8. The organizing committee for the alternative academic day includes Christopher MacDonald-Dennis, chief diversity officer (CDO); Kerri Nicoll, assistant professor of sociology, anthropology, and social work; Jenna Sciuto, assistant professor of English/communications; and Michael Obasohan, assistant director of diversity programs. The idea for the Day of Dialogue was inspired by the Nov. 15, 2016, student rally in the Amsler Campus Center. The passionate rally was in reaction to the 2016 presidential election. Classes have been suspended for the day of events to emphasize the importance of the theme, complicating race, and active dialogue overall. The day begins with a breakfast and welcoming remarks from Christine Condaris, professor of music. The first five workshops for participants are from 9:45 a.m to 11:45 a.m. The workshops will be hosted by faculty, staff, and/or alumni. During planning, MacDonald-Dennis reached out to faculty for workshops they were interested in putting on for the day. At noon, lunch will be provided in Venable Gym and Nicoll will
Dialogue, page 2
Ballot Review
Question 3: Fighting For Trans Rights BY RON LEJA EDITOR-IN- CHIEF
What is The Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Veto Referendum? Ballot question 3, the “Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Veto Referendum,” places newly gained rights of members of the transgender community in jeopardy. In 2016, Gov. Charlie Baker signed a transgender rights bill into law granting transgender people unquestioned access to any and all public restrooms and locker rooms throughout the state, based on the preferred gender identity of the individual. The bill expanded upon a 2011 law passed by Gov. Deval Patrick, concerning the prohibition of discrimination in places of public accommodation (stores, restaurants, movie theaters, libraries, etc.) based on any number of characteristics, to include one’s sexual orientation and gender identity. According to state law, gender identity is defined as the gender-related identity, appearance, or behavior sincerely held as part of
a person’s core identity, regardless of whether or not these things differ traditionally from the person’s physiology or assigned sex at birth. The bill also placed a fine ranging from $100 and/or 30 days in prison to upwards of $2500 and/or a year in prison for violations of the law, with a civil penalty ranging from $10,000 to $50,000 for each prior violation. A slew of mixed feelings surrounded the bill’s initial passing. Crudely dubbed “the bathroom bill” by those opposed, opponents of the bill argued that it would potentially help to create unsafe environments for women and children in certain facilities— namely, public restrooms. Due to the state’s current definition of gender identity, opponents of the law believe it could allow sexual deviants claiming to be transgender easier access to women’s restrooms. However, the law in question did include a provision asking Attorney General Maura Healey to address how one should handle a situation in which it is evident that one is asserting a gender identity for an “improper purpose.” A statement released by
Photo from Wikimedia Commons
An attendee at Twin Cities Pride Parade in Downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota, on June 24, 2018. Healey’s office in September 2016 read: “ If an employee of a public accommodation has reasonable grounds to believe that a person, regardless of gender identity, is engaged in improper or unlawful conduct, they should do whatever they would normally do to address the situation, including asking the patron to leave or calling
security or law enforcement.” Those in support of question 3, namely the “Freedom For All Massachusetts” organization, state that the concerns being pushed by the bill’s opponents are vastly unfounded and meant to instill fear in the general populous. A report examining bathroom-related crime
throughout the state, released by the Williams Institute in September, also found that the frequency of criminal incidents taking place in bathrooms hadn’t increased since the bill’s approval. While a “yes” vote on question 3 would see the current law
Rights, page 2