A N I S U S T U D E N T P U B L I C AT I O N V. X . I .
THE FREED OM MAGAZ I N E
YOUR BORN RIGHTS ISL AMIC AMERIC A
uhuru magazine / / S pring 2012 / / 1
10 Iowa Asian Alliance Presents
a decade of
Asian Heritage Festival MAY 12, 2012 • FREE ADMISSION
www.celebrasian.org
Saturday, May 12, 2012 • 10 a.m. - 8 p.m.
State Capitol Complex - East Campus • Des Moines, IA
Visit celebrAsian.org today
@celebrasian
Sign up to be a volunteer • Register your Volleyball or Takraw team Enter the Martial Arts competition or the Next SensAsian talent show
Table of Contents
Spring 2012
28 ISLAMIC AMERIC A
Culture - 6
Just Because You Can - 18 Empowerment found in restraint
F e a t u r e s - 26
SOPA - 11 The battle rages over your Internet rights
Riots in London - 22 Perspectives from across the Pond
Occupy Wall Street - 26 Protests that spawned a movement
Civil Liberties - 12 Freedoms of Religion, Speech, & Press
S t u d e n t S p o t l i g h t - 21
Islamic America - 28 Dispelling stereotypes and exercising freedoms
To Burn or Not to Burn - 13 Should the flag be sacred?
Oana Murray - 21 Americans and Brits speak out differently
Banned Books - 32 Good reads disliked by powerful people
Cross Culture Rights - 15 Free speech haves & have-nots
Michael Belding - 22 Opinion Editor speaks freely
First Amendment Day - 35 Find out what all the fuss is about
Free Speech and Slander - 18 When speaking your mind can be illegal
Letter from the Editor
Spring 2012
You may be curious about the theme for this issue. First Amendment Rights in the multicultural magazine? It seems pretty self-centered at first. I can’t say that I didn’t feel a little sheepish doing such an American theme for a magazine that purports to be conscious of multicultural issues. However, the more we dove into the issue, the more we found that our rights affect a wide range of cultures, if only because we don’t always interpret them in the same way for everyone in the country. As Sal Syed (featured in the cover story) explains, we use our privileges as the WASP majority to redefine what we want our rights to mean; in a government based on majority rule, this means that sometimes minorities, countercultures, or cultural productions get the short end of the stick. Working on this issue has really opened my eyes to the privilege we enjoy as Americans, and as the American majority; it has also shown me that we sometimes use that privilege for closeminded purposes. I urge you, as I urge myself, to keep an open mind and an open heart as you flip through this issue, and to remember that every human being deserves the rights we are privileged to enjoy.
riley dawson In our Fall 2011 issue "Students Abroad," we neglected to give complete information for the photo accompanying Lexington Hills' Student Spotlight. This photo was taken by Nic Dayton, and the young woman in the photo with Hills is Lyndsey Batz. We apologize for any confusion that this may have caused our readers.
Spring 2012
Masthead
Riley Dawson
e d i t o r- i n - c h i e f
Jordan Becker design director
Editorial alli kolick , christopher biagini , emily hall , sarah huempfner, corey o ’ bannon ,
B r a n d o n A l v a r a d o , Alex Register & Amber Leick
lauren johnsen
assitant design directors
Design Britta Mennecke & Alison Gamm photo directors
cory witt , krystal kopp , amber haack , paige winters , jennifer schrimper, kelsie young , tyler dehague , amber leick , lauren
Jordan Matson & Valerie Lemaster assitant photo directors
Morgan Sanders advertising director
B r a n d o n A l v a ra d o
ehlers , donny chen , leah willadsen , abigail smith , hang michelle bui
Blurb Design zoe larson , teryn hammes , ashley diers , chris baenziger, nguyet bui , kathryn moore , tam vo
typography design
Advertising Sarah Huempfner features editor
trish reifenstahl , michael hillier, bridget herrick
uhuru magazine / / S pring 2012 / / 5
Spring 2012
Culture
As this issue’s theme is the first amendment and its various interpretations, we felt it necessary to provide the text verbatim for our readers. In case you were wondering what exactly all the fuss is about, here it is--straight from the Constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
SK E TC H L I T E R A R Y J O U R N A L Sketch is a student-run literary journal featuring work by student writers and artists across campus. All Iowa State students, regardless of year or major, are encouraged to submit to Sketch. Sketch is a great opportunity for aspiring creative students to get published in a formal journal. Submissions accepted for fiction, non-fiction, poetry & visual arts.
sketch.stuorg.iastate.edu
WARSAW WAFFLE 1 part Maple Syrup, 3 parts Vodka Pour both ingredients into a shot glass, stir until dissolved.
SWEATY COLOMBIAN 4.5 oz Vodka, 3 oz. Kahlua, 1 oz. Light Cream Shake with ice, strain, add light cream & serve.
THE FALL OF ROME 2 parts Dry Vermouth, 1 part Brandy Add a dash of lime juice and fill with orange juice. Stir, top with sherry.
DR. RED RUSSIAN As college students, we’re all professional procrastinators. Next time you’re feeling particularly lazy, why not expand your cultural film horizons? Our staff researched some of the most popular foreign films available for instant streaming on Netflix, all for your personal pleasure! You’re welcome.
WILD TARGET, UK, 2010 A hit man finds himself unable to complete a job, and winds up with an unexpected sidekick who thinks he’s a detective. He now has to deal with an overbearing mother and the client whose job he failed to perform.
OLDBO Y, South Korea, 2003 The film tells the story of a man who is imprisoned without knowing his crime. He is released after fifteen years, only to find that he must track down his captor within the next five days.
SHAOLIN SOCCER, China, 2001 Originally in Cantonese and Mandarin, an ex-soccer player joins forces with a monk to form a team and win the China Super Cup Soccer Tournament.
Y TU MAMÁ TAMBIÉN, Mexico, 2001 Two teenage boys and an attractive older woman go on a road trip and learn about, among other things, sex, life, and each other.
GOMORRAH, Italy, 2008 The stories of a delivery boy, a tailor, a businessman and two teenagers combine to tell the story of one of Naples’ modern-day mob families.
1 oz. vodka, 3 oz. Dr. Pepper, 2 oz. Red Bull
PISCO SOUR 6 oz. Pisco Brandy, 2 oz. lemon juice, 4 – 6 ice cubes, 1 egg white, 1–2 tbsp superfine sugar Add pisco, lemon juice & ice cubes to a bar shaker. Beat egg white and sugar together in a bowl with a fork to dissolve the sugar. Add to shake & Strain into chilled glasses and enjoy
Baskets r 4 sittin.
UHURU IZ TEH BEST!!
T O F O L LO W @GHETTOHIKES @PHILOBRO leads urban kids on hikes is “just a bro who likes and writes down things they philosophy.” “Best summary of say. "Desmond done carved postmodernism I’ve yet heard: his name into da side of dis ‘because fuck you, that’s why’” tree. Now peoples gonna think some Indian hieroglyphic shit went down."
@FLULA is a German techno artist living in LA. “Oh yes Monday you are now here and I am here as well with you! I High-Fives you good, Monday, and #BOOM! We Make It Now: A Dope Week!”
@AMESCUPCAKES gives you the flavors and soup for the day at the Ames Cupcake Emporium on Main Street.
@ M E N TA L _ F L O S S provides random facts and trivia for your daily enjoyment. “Tomorrow is National Read in the Bath Tub Day (February 9). Watch the pruning.”
Oh, dis ar ur duck?
TOO HEBBBY!
All these cats r dumb.....
Advertise with
UHURU ohai! dis is teh kittehs frum teh staffs of uhuru. bring teh cute to our next issue and send moar kittehs to teh facebook page.
Needz them belly rubs.
I r teh pritee.
If u dye, i mite eat u.
U young kidz an ur kitteh littr.
u h u ru e d i t o r @ i a s ta t e . e d u
illustration BRANDON ALVARADO photo VALERIE LEMASTER designer TERYN HAMMES
ISU Surplus’s goal is to redistribute what the university can’t use anymore to other state-funded organizations. Once all of those avenues have been exhausted, the leftover materials are made available for sale to the general public. The building is open on Wednesdays from 12-3 pm. These items were all purchased from the ISU surplus warehouse by members of our staff. Each item was purchased for less the $10.
SOPA
Stop Online Piracy Act & Protect Intellectual Property Act
by COREY O’BANNON illustration VALERIE LEMASTER designer JENNIFER SCHRIMPER
On January 18th of this year, you probably noticed a big black square covering the Google image. You may also have tried to access Wikipedia and found that the entire website was unavailable for a day. Or you could have stopped by a handful of other websites and noticed a slew of other protests against two bills. The thing is, SOPA and PIPA are designed to target and block foreign websites which perpetuate internet piracy. A direct quote from the legislation says, “A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof ) that is subject to the order.” Essentially, piracy websites would become unavailable and search engines could get in legal trouble for linking to those websites. Right now, these bills are very strongly supported by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and the Recording Industry Association of America – the trade organizations that lose the most money from copyright infringement. Theoretically, it’s a nice, moral idea: eliminate piracy. Everybody pays for what they get. In practice, however, the idea is scary. Consider if an infringing photo or video clip were posted on Facebook. Facebook itself could get into serious trouble for hosting the infringement. The same would be true if a photo on Wikipedia was not properly cited or was considered infringing.
Furthermore, the bill is vaguely worded and gives the government an awful lot of power over an average American’s access to the Internet. Who decides what material is considered infringement? What are the criteria that a website must meet in order for it to be removed? By giving the government the authority to censor websites promoting piracy, we set a precedent which the government may use to prevent citizens from viewing material that trade associations and powerful corporations do not want them to see. It is a slippery slope down to the elimination of our first amendment rights and our freedom to express ourselves online. How would it be if the next social media site – the next Youtube, for example – was blocked on the grounds that it was infringing material? Consider that in March 2011, it was estimated that 48 hours of video were uploaded to Youtube every minute that year. Think of all that information. Now imagine that it was inaccessible. Important social movements, such as It Gets Better, which provides support for depressed gay youth, use Youtube to send important messages. Access to free education like Khan Academy, which offers advanced mathematics and science lessons, could be removed from Youtube. Even Justin Bieber, whether you like him or not, began his career by being recognized on Youtube. What if that opportunity was taken away from those millions of aspiring singers?
uhuru magazine / / S pring 2012 / / 11
CIVIL
LIBERTIES by EMILY HALL photos JORDAN MATSON designer KELSIE YOUNG Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. These are probably three pretty familiar terms to those who have ever picked up a government textbook or turned on the news; they are freedoms which refer to the basic trio of civil liberties that we, as Americans, claim. Oftentimes, it is easy to confuse civil liberties with civil rights, but there is a small distinction between the two. Civil liberties are limitations which spell out what the government cannot do to its people and are laid out in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Civil rights, on the other hand, are the rights of equal protection under the law to all Americans, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. These provide rules for what the government has to do for its people.But what really are civil liberties? What do they protect? Freedom of Religion. The two most important things one needs to remember about the freedom of religion are two clauses: the principles of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The establishment clause prohibits the founding of a church that is supported by the national government. This also deals with the concept of separation of church and state, set forth in the First Amendment. Allowing
prayer in school, teaching evolution versus creationism, and religious organizations being placed in schools are all discussed in the establishment clause which cannot encourage nor discriminate against an individual’s beliefs. The free exercise clause does not prohibit religious beliefs of an individual but allows government action upon certain religious practices which disrupt public welfare. Freedom of Speech. The freedom of speech allows citizens to have their say or listen to the opinions of others without government action taken against them. This freedom protects prior restraint (restraining an activity before it happens), symbolic speech (expression made nonverbally), and commercial speech (advertising statements). Permitted action can take place, however, when there is a clear and present danger which can create a disturbance to the public order, determined by the clear and present danger test via Congress. Speech that is unprotected by the government includes obscenity (material which is sexually offensive) and the defamation of character (wrongfully hurting someone’s good reputation). Slander is a public false statement which defames a person’s character. Freedom of the Press. Freedom of the press is often associated with freedom of speech in that it protects certain rights not of citizens but of the media. In comparison with slander, libel is the defamation of someone’s character, the difference being libel is written (on paper, signs, films, pictures, or other printed words of communication) instead of publically spoken. Public figures (public officials/employees with extreme government power) are the most greatly affected by freedom of press; they must prove actual malice (knowledge of a false statement or reckless disregard for the truth) can be made about their statements. Another important term associated with the freedom of press is a gag order, a judge-issued order which restricts news publication regarding a trial or pretrial hearing to protect the accused’s right to a fair trial.
TO BURN
OR NOT TO BURN by LAUREN JOHNSEN illustrations VALERIE LEMASTER designer MICHELLE BUI The First Amendment allows people to speak and write freely, practice any religion, and assemble peacefully. Flag desecration, burning being one of many ways to desecrate the flag, is a form of protest. Flag burning, at least in the U.S., is not considered to be unconstitutional. According to the rulings in the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Texas v. Johnson and U.S. v. Eichman, flag burning is covered under “symbolic speech” – a legal term in the U.S. used to
Burning of the flag is often seen as “un-American,” and many people find this act to be greatly offensive, because the flag is a sacred symbol. describe actions that purposefully and discernibly convey a particular message or statement to those viewing it. “Symbolic speech” is covered by the right to free speech in the First Amendment. Even though it is covered, many people do not think it should not be. Burning of the flag is often seen as “unAmerican” and many people find this act to be greatly offensive. Some even go as far as to demand sending people to jail for burning the flag. This would put the United States on the same level as a number of other
countries. Several countries including: Austria, China, and Denmark have ruled that only foreign nations’ flags are illegal to burn. The Denmark flag can be burned, as well as the German flag and many other flags. Looking into flag burning, it seems to be constitutional. As long as it is done in such a way that does not harm anyone else, there should be no issues with it as a form of protest. Investigating the opponents of flag burning, one may find a myriad of different reasons for supporting a ban. Some people think that the flag symbolizes the American people, and think of it as a sacred symbol. With this logic, it is easy to understand why some people believe that burning a flag goes too far and support a ban on this particular form of protest. Whichever side you may be on, it is important to remember that flag burning is merely that: a flag. It is a symbol, one that has a meaning dear to the heart of any patriot, but it is just that: a symbol. The act of flag burning is also symbolic; it is used to get attention in a dramatic and visual fashion. Regardless of your opinion, remember in this (and all things) to be respectful; consider the thoughts, feelings, and opinions of others before you act or speak.
uhuru magazine / / S pring 2012 / / 13
HOPE 4 AFRICA WHAT WE DO Hope 4 Africa at ISU is a student branch of the main organization Hope 4 Africa, Inc. We raise money for schools in Kenya by organizing events and fundraisers in order to improve their education. We believe that as young as we are we can still make a difference in this world by giving other young people the tools they need to achieve their dreams.
Hope 4 Africa @ ISU has been an awesome experience for me during my time at ISU! It has allowed me to get involved and be a leader, have a lot of fun, and most importantly help others. What’s cool about our club is that we are students helping other students. All the money we raise helps improve our partner schools so they can provide a quality education to all of their students. I would highly suggest you come to a club meeting, attend an event, or check out our website to learn more about our club and the Hope 4 Africa organization as a whole.
WHERE WE FOCUS
-Bennett Coffman, Club President
Or for more information, visit us at www.hope4africa.info
Hope 4 Africa raises money for the Ogilgei Primary School, the Kirobon Primary School, and Boror High School in Kenya. The four programs we focus on are:
Hope 4 Students:
Music 4 Hope:
Providing Bright and needy students
Giving the opportunity to learn how
access to quality education
to play various instruments
H2O 4 Hope:
Electricity 4 Hope:
Improving the quality of education
Installing access to electricity
by providing access to clean water
Find us on Facebook, and get involved today!
COUNTRIES WITHOUT FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
by ALLI KOLICK illustrations T YLER DEHAGUE designer AMBER LEICK
To Americans, the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment may seem to be a simple demand of a country’s citizens, but in many cases, it is a luxury that does not exist outside of America. As Americans, we are fortunate enough to have laws, or in this case amendments, that grant us as citizens certain
rights that are meant to be upheld by our government. One of the most important amendments is the first: the right to speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. To Americans, this may seem to be a simple demand of a country’s people, however in many cases, it is a luxury that only Americans have.
Many other countries operate on a completely different level when it comes to protecting rights that, in America, we consider to be the most basic.
SOUTH KOREA The rest of the world looks at South Korea as being more evolved compared to North Korea or since the Korean War, there are still laws in place that limits the rights of its citizens. For example there is clear official censorship set in place by The National Security Law that makes it illegal to share sympathies or beliefs with North Korea, however much more of the censorship is focused towards the media. UNITED KINGDOM In the UK there is no very clear and concise document, such as the US Bill of Rights, that lays out the relationship between the citizens of the country and the state. Citizens of the UK have the freedom of expression, or speech, however it can be restricted to protect public interest. In the same clause as freedom of expression is freedom of conscience, which includes the freedom of religion without being persecuted. These are both found in articles nine and ten of the European Convention on Human Rights. Along with these rights, citizens of the UK have the right to assemble as they consider it part of the freedom of expression.
A F G H A N I S TA N This country has taken on several offenses to human rights when the Taliban was running the country, but there have been some changes since the Taliban regime has ended. Since then there have been organizations, such as Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, or AIHRC, that have been created to protect human rights in the country. While this is a step in the right direction, it is still difficult for other nations that have been watching Afghanistan, to be able to tell the progress that is actually being made. As of right now, there seem to still be major offenses towards people’s human rights in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, there is not nearly enough attention brought to the issue as the media is primarily government-owned. This country’s laws differ from ours in another way in the sense that there is a national religion: Islam. While the people of Afghanistan are not required to practice Islam, all of the laws must align with Islamic morality. CHINA China has been accused of human rights violations by several organizations, such as the US State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. A lot of their human rights issues could have to do with the fact that the government lacks structure as there are very few laws in general, let alone ones that protect civil rights of the people of China. Often many things are censored by the government regardless of the fact that their 1982 constitution guarantees the freedom of speech to the Chinese citizens. Protesting has also been dealt with in a similar way in
the case of the 2008 summer Olympics that were held in Beijing. As there were seven foreign activist advocating for Tibetan freedom in one of the parks that summer, protesters were deported even though the Chinese government had already promised permits to allow people to protest in the parks. Chinese citizen’s freedom of press and religion are treated similarly as the government tries to censor the Chinese people from the different ways of life in the world. INDIA In India there is a document in place that provides the Fundamental Rights, which is the Constitution of India. These rights include freedom of religion, speech, and freedom of movement both domestic and foreign. Unlike the United States, the Constitution of India does not mention the actual word “press” but the Indian government sees that it falls under the clause of “freedom of speech and expression.” This clause can be very widely defined. If someone asked me what I thought it meant, I would answer that this clause gives the citizens of India the right to say what they are thinking and how they feel as well as express themselves through whatever medium they feel gets their message across the best. However, that also leaves room for the government to interpret the clause differently should a situation arise that would be unsavory if the freedom of speech and expression was fully granted. While freedom of religion is granted in the Constitution of India, there have always been conflicts between the two major religious groups in India, which are the Hindus and the Muslims. The people of India, while they have the right to practice their religion freely, feel strongly about their religions and act upon their beliefs.
uhuru magazine / / S pring 2012 / / 17
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FREE SPEECH & SLANDER
by COREY O’BANNON
There is an interesting phenomenon which occurs all
photos VALERIE LEMASTER
designer LEAH WILLADSEN
of outrageous claims and assumptions. Imagine, for
to often all over the world in the 21st century, but is
example, that I decided to publish a biography of Sarah
extremely common in the United States. People seem to
Palin in which I asserted that she spent her high school
assume that because they live in a country which values
years in an affair with her drug-dealing math teacher, a
free speech, they are able to say whatever it is that comes
man that assisted her ascendancy to the title of number
into their mind at any given time. To be fair, whatever
one heroine dealer in Alaska. Might as well make her
strange and peculiar thoughts you may generate, you do
an addict while we are at it. I assure you that I could
have the ability and right to express yourself, but it might
spin you a thrilling tale and that I could probably make
just earn you a lawsuit.
a fair bit of money at that woman’s expense. The only
If people were able to say whatever they felt/thought about anyone, there would be many more publications
In a handful of words, defamation is the act of making false claims that negatively affect another person or entity’s image. My award-winning biography would qualify as a more particular type of defamation which is called libel, a word which refers to printed defamation. Another type of defamation is slander, which usually describes more fleeting acts, like spoken words or gestures. In the United States, you must prove three things to prove a statement is libel: the statement was false, the statement caused harm, and the statement was made “without adequate research” into its own truthfulness. If you are a celebrity or a public official, then you must also prove that the statement was made with the intent to do harm, or that it was made with a reckless disregard for the truth. These criteria have been gradually addressed and refined in court cases throughout United States history. For example, in 1734, John Peter Zenger published an article in the New York Weekly Journal which was critical of the New York governor. Zenger ended up being accused of seditious libel, but was found “not guilty” in court as all allegations made in the article had been proven true. This case set the precedent for support by the truth exempting a person from libelous accusations. Sometimes, laws regarding defamation conflict with the first amendment, and it is easy to see how: The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, but Defamation Law tightens that freedom. It basically says, “You have free speech, except when…” To be completely fair, the United States law on defamation is considered to be, in comparison to most other countries, less “plaintiff-friendly”. This means that whomever it is that has been defamed is going to have a hard time proving it in court. Still, it is valuable to note that what we might consider the mere exercise of the right to speak freely other countries might consider offensive and punishable. Within the United States, defamation is tricky business.
catch is that this biography would fall under the dark umbrella of defamation.
Certainly, there is federal legislation on the subject, but states are allowed to determine their own laws about the issue, which makes a general discussion on the topic nearly impossible. For example, on a federal level, there are no criminal laws against defamation. On a state level, however, seventeen states have such laws. Consider also that some states group libel and slander together, others don’t. Most states (all but Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee) have in place a policy on defamation per se, which essentially considers some statements so offensive that the defamed person doesn’t need to prove the formerly listed postulates. These are: claims “injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession,” claims “of loathsome disease” (for example, proclaiming that a person has a sexually transmitted infection), claims of “unchaste behavior,” or claims of criminal activity. Now. Let us look past international law. Past federal law. Past the mess
of state laws that follow that. What do we do about the internet? In Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v Prodigy Services Co., which took place in 1995, the New York Supreme Court ruled that internet
leave us now? It is hard to know. The internet is a magical place, and there are thousands upon thousands of opportunities for the average person to say outrageous things about just about anyone or anything
The New York Supreme Court ruled that internet service providers could be considered liable for the speech of their users.
service providers could be considered liable for the speech of their users. Then, in 1996, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act explicitly overruled the ruling, stating that internet service providers could not be held responsible for their user’s speech. Subsequent cases have reinforced this 1996 overruling, stating that it would be nearly impossible for internet service providers to remove all false claims made by their users. The ruling goes on to say that if they did, it would create what is known as a chilling effect (or suppression of free speech due to legal threat) on freedom of speech online. So where does that
and to do so anonymously. Still anything published is, theoretically, subject to defamation law if it meets the postulates listed above, and while there aren’t many precedents right now, the law is growing with the internet. The point is we do have free speech and that it is incredibly valuable. As such, it should not be abused. There’s really nothing to be gained by saying those awful things about Sarah Palin or anyone else for that matter, unless the statements are grounded in fact and can be supported.
uhuru magazine / / S pring 2012 / / 19
J U S T ‘C U Z Y O U C A N DOESN’T MEAN YOU SHOULD
by SARAH HUEMPFNER photos JORDAN MATSON designer KRYSTAL KOPP
What is ability? The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘ability’ as “The quality in a person or thing which makes an action possible; suitable or sufficient power or proficiency; capability, capacity to do, or (now rare) of doing something." The question then, in discussing the First Amendment, is whether or not ability necessitates action. Does the capability to do or say something mean you must? Or is it a Peter Parker situation: with great power comes great responsibility? On the one hand, ability may give you a free pass. Can you say what you want? Do you have that ability? Then you might as well utilize to its full extent. Can you run faster or jump higher than others? Then we, in the 21st century society that encourages competition, say do better than others because you can. However, in this paradigm, those who can take what is not theirs may also act on this ability. Can Subject A, bigger, stronger, faster, and smarter than Subject B, take everything Subject B owns? According to this
principle, yes. Of course, this is an extreme example; no one actually thinks that way, one might say. But isn’t it the spirit of competition that capitalism fosters in this country that says just that? Compete; and if they can’t keep up, well, that is the will of the system. Not everyone can win, not everyone can get what he or she wants. So if Subject A has the ability to overtake Subject B by any means necessary, he should do so. That is the will of the system. On the other hand, ability doles out more responsibility than freedom. One must consider the implications of one’s actions. Who will this affect? If anyone, in what way? What chain of events might this action set into motion? The human race is so interdependent that every action taken by every human on the planet affects someone in some way. The effects may not be visible right away, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there. Take speech for an example. It may take minutes, hours, days or even months for something said to really sink in to the recipient. It may never even get there. Albus Dumbledore said to Harry Potter in the most recent film, “Words are, in my not so humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. They are potent forms of enchantment, rich with the power to hurt or heal." Humanity disregards this power all too often; our callous words cover the internet with insults, disdain, rudeness, and ignorant cruelty. We, as humans, abuse this power daily in our interactions. Therefore, to combine the best of both paradigms, one must acknowledge ability while simultaneously taking into consideration the wellbeing of others. There are some who would argue that the latter half is an impediment to the First Amendment; that constantly watching our words for fear of offending the sensitive is akin to censorship. However, it is important to remember the power of restraint. By restricting our actions due to conscious consideration of their implications, we exercise more power over ourselves and can more fully appreciate the freedom granted to us in our constitution. The best example of these maxims is in the case of truth. If Subject B knows a truth about Subject A, does that mean Subject B must inform Subject A of said truth? Or is Subject B under no such obligation? In this age of social media and erasure of the line between public and private thanks to sharing online, there seems to be no limit to the “truths” we share about ourselves and each other. One glance through anyone’s facebook profile
reveals any number of thoughts on others or pictures or other descriptions of the actions of others. This practice of unrestrained sharing has had some unintended consequences. People get hurt. Just because Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and other internet sources present the ability to spout truths about others doesn’t mean that one should, or even that it’s acceptable. Mere knowledge of a truth does not necessitate sharing of it. Of course, there are times when sharing a truth is crucial. Abuse, for example. Or coming forward with information about someone who intends to hurt him/herself or others. The truth is a heavy burden to bear, and with it comes great responsibility. The conclusion, then, is that mere ability to do or say something absolutely does not mean one should. It is important for all American citizens, who are guaranteed the freedoms of speech and press, to consider the implications of their actions. Empowerment can be found in restraint and in consideration for the wellbeing of others as well as in the green light to say and do anything at the drop of a hat. The freedom of speech should not be interpreted as the freedom to manipulate or hurt. In criticism of government or of peers, one must take into consideration the thoughts and feelings of others instead of exercising this freedom outright.
uhuru magazine / / S pring 2012 / / 21
riots in london by EMILY HALL illustrations T YLER DEHAGUE designer ABBY SMITH
The chaos all started from a police shooting which occurred in Tottenham on Thursday, August 4, 2011. Twenty-nine-year-old Mark Duggan was part of a preplanned police operation under Trident, a unit which investigates gun crime in the African and Caribbean communities of England. The police were trying to stop Duggan’s car to arrest him when gun-fire began. Duggan was shot and killed by the police. A bullet found lodged in one of the officer’s radios implied Duggan was in fact part of the shooting, but it was later forensically confirmed that Duggan had not opened fire against the officers before being shot to death. On August 6, two days after the shooting, three hundred people gathered outside Tottenham police station wanting “justice” for Mark Duggan and his family. This started out as a peaceful demonstration, but after a few bottles were thrown at police cars, setting one ablaze, the violence officially commenced. The worst violence raged parts of London including Hackney, Brixton, Chingford, Peckham, Enfield, Croydon, and East Ham. One hundred youths used social media to gather outside the Enfield police station on
August 7, looting shops and rioting in the streets. Bricks were thrown at the police officers trying to calm the fights. The riots continued on the eighth, with shops and cars being set on fire. After the initial attacks, “copycat violence” trailed in Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham, Wolver Hampton, Nottingham, Salford, and Liverpool over the next five days. There had been six-hundred eighty-five arrests made by August 10. Prime Minister David Cameron commented, “We will not allow a culture of fear to exist on our streets.” He also warned that there would be more arrests to come. On the eleventh, Cameron stated the rioting was “criminality, pure and simple.” The last official day of the riots took place on August 12, 2011. With large numbers of police officers still occupying the streets, there was finally a peaceful night in London. According to BBC News, as of August 15, a total of nearly 3,100 people had been arrested. Of these, more than 1,000 have been charged and appeared in court.
A VIEW FROM AN AMERICAN’S EYE In order to get a different perspective than one found on BBC News, Greta Mugge, a former Iowa State student who studied abroad at Middlesex University in London in 2010, provided some insight on how the common laws in England were different than what she was accustomed to in the U.S. “Their strangest law, I felt, was that everyone had to have a ‘TV license’ in order to own a TV, which funded television, radio and internet services provided by BBC. The cost was almost 150 pounds a year,” Greta said in reference to dissimilarities in laws. “This meant that for a live event, like the Olympics or the Super Bowl, students were usually crowded around the dorm TV downstairs or in a lucky rich student’s dorm. For regular TV however, the students relied on their laptops, scouring the internet for the latest streaming site. Every single person in that dorm was illegally downloading from their computers.” Internet streaming is obviously a popular tool used by citizens of the U.S., but imagine having to pay $236 a year simply to own a television, on top of however much was spent to purchase the TV in the first place. It’s no wonder numerous photos taken during the August rioting in London showed youths rushing out of the broken-glass doors of looted shops carrying brand new televisions; at least that much would be free.
“The government was never really mentioned by the students so I can’t give you a lot on their feelings of it,” Greta said when asked about government involvement she noticed during her stay or in regards to the riots, “but I do know Wood Green, where my dorm was located, was one of the places that rioting occurred.” “When I first arrived in London, even the Tube security guard told us we shouldn’t stay there since it was considered dangerous, but as time passed that apparently just meant ‘ethnic,’ ” Greta continued. “I never walked in that neighborhood and felt threatened and I even felt comfortable running to the park at night. There were a lot of large families of African or Indian descent and I think that’s where the discrimination stemmed from.” Lastly, Greta discussed her thoughts about the riots, thankfully having studied in London before the madness occurred. “From what I read with the riots, many felt that Wood Green, as well as Tottenham, was a forgotten or unimportant area and that the forces let the riots go on too long because they didn’t care if the area was destroyed and that it might give reason to arrest citizens later on charges of looting.” Seeing as how there were 215 arrests made in Tottenham over the first two nights of rioting alone, it’s safe to say this may very well have been the case.
AN UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION The constitution of a country is a set of rules regulating the powers of its government and the rights and duties of its citizens. The United Kingdom is one of three counties which do not have a single written constitution, the other two being Israel and New Zealand. Although the country does have “rules and regulations,” the lack of “constitutional laws” in the country might have been one of the largest impacts to the elongation of the London rioting. Laws found in the U.S. Constitution allow enough government involvement that had the rioting happened in America, the situation may have been resolved more quickly due to military interference. This can be backed up in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution stating that “Congress shall have power... to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute laws of the Union, suppress
Insurrections, and repel Invasions.” American citizens have the freedoms listed in the First Amendment for a reason, that being the government should not be able to control every aspect the country, but act when needed. The London riots are clear examples of how an organized set of laws, although changed over time, could have been utilized to provide a way of this chaotic situation.
uhuru magazine / / S pring 2012 / / 23
Spring 2012
Student Spotlights
Orla Murray by ALLI KOLICK photos ORLA MURRAY designer AMBER HAACK
Órla Murray is a fourth year student studying sociology and politics at the University of Edinburgh. Like many college students around the world, she made time in her busy university course schedule to study abroad in America at University of California – San Diego.
From this aspect Murray had several things to say about the different rights she was guaranteed in the US and her home country, Northern Ireland. Something that people should know is that Northern Ireland is still part of the UK and their government is run by Parliament in London. Like Scotland and England, Northern Ireland uses the pound and has the same legislative values as the rest of the United Kingdom. Murray explains that there needs to be a distinction between Northern and Southern Ireland because Southern Ireland is part of the European Union, uses the Euro as their currency, and holds different pieces of legislature to govern their country. As a student studying politics, Murray had a good grasp on what rights she was granted in the UK. As we talked over tea and some pre-dinner snacks, she explained to me that while citizens of the UK are guaranteed, there is no written constitution for Britain. “I think their [Parliament’s] approach to human rights is good, but, there is always a but,” Murray explained. “It’s difficult to know what your rights are.” When I asked Murray if there was anything that should be changed about the way these rights were executed in the UK, she said that the Parliament needs to crystallize the law so that people have a clearer idea of what their rights are. Murray also said that the government should be more lenient about protesting laws. “If you can’t protest beside the government about what makes you angry, then what’s the point?” said Murray. Most of these changes are Murray’s response to, what she describes as, civil liberties being slowly eroded since the 2000’s “to supposedly combat terrorism,” said Murray. The bulk of Murray’s apprehension about the
government’s reasoning for giving the police more rights comes from her belief that most people aren’t out to hurt anyone and that people should be treated like adults. When Murray studied at UCSD, it gave her some insight to the American legislative and judicial system and how laws, like the First Amendment, affect American citizens. One of the higher praises that Murray made was about the fact that American citizens have their rights clearly listed out. Even though civil liberties are laid out in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, Murray had several critiques that she felt the American people haven’t addressed. “I felt that I always had a choice in the states. However in the UK I felt like I had much more freedom to say whatever the hell I wanted,” Murray said. Inevitably after free speech and censorship came up in the conversation, SOPA was brought into question. Murray felt that the American government doesn’t realize that it will not only affect the American people, but the rest of the world as well. “People are kind of complacent about their rights,” Murray said acknowledging that the American people know that they have the constitution and just expect their rights to be upheld. “I feel like all of those rights have been violated by all of the different governments,” Murray said about having local and federal governments in the US. “[But] at the end of the day our rights are being violated too.”
Michael Belding by LAUREN JOHNSEN photos JORDAN MATSON designer LAUREN EHLERS
The First Amendment guarantees our most basic rights: free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to assemble. We, as a people, do not have to face jail time, or even death, for shouting our opinions or practicing a religion. Even though more people in today’s
day and age share their thoughts anonymously on the internet, these thoughts and feelings are still enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Iowa State University, along with the Greenlee School of Journalism, recognizes the importance of this amendment, and celebrates First Amendment Day, as a part of First Amendment week, every year in April. Focusing on the free speech aspect, I sat down with Michael Belding, senior in History and Political Science and Opinion Editor for the Iowa State Daily, to talk about why Iowa State celebrates this important amendment. I asked Belding why he thinks it’s important that we celebrate this amendment, and he said that the day should be used as a way to get students to more aware
of their rights and to use them. Belding looks at this day from a historical, rather than journalistic, perspective. The constitution was written in 1787 and was immediately amended to ensure these basic rights. The founding fathers wanted to ensure everyone's right to free speech. First Amendment Day is way of getting students to be more open and public with their opinions. Because of the First Amendment, students are given the opportunity to stand outside the library and let the world know what they are thinking. Belding thinks students today do not realize the extent of their rights of free speech. People state their opinions in coffee shops or aloud to their car radios without ever making them formally public. He encourages people to write in to the Daily expressing their opinion on pieces or to call in to radio stations when they ask for public thoughts. He wants people to realize that they can, and should, put their own thoughts and opinions out to the public. This amendment is what allows us to do so, and we should exercise this freedom whenever we can. I asked Belding if the ultimate goal of this day was action or awareness, assuming he would say action. I thought he would have hoped that this day would spark people to call into a radio station or write a letter to the editor. I was a little surprised when he said awareness instead. He said that he would hate for this day to become just another holiday. He mentioned religious holidays, and how it seems that Christmas or Easter seem to be the one day of the year that a lot of people attend church, or do anything remotely religious, instead of making that a part of their daily lives. He didn’t want this day to be the one time of the year that everyone exercises their rights, but as a day to bring awareness to them. If this day simply gets people thinking, they may be more inclined to exercise these rights on a daily basis, instead of just once a year when the day occurs.
uhuru magazine / / S pring 2012 / / 25
T H E O C C U P Y M O V E M E N T
by CHRISTOPHER BIAGINI photos ALISON GAMM designer PAIGE WINTERS Even if you avoid the media at all costs and spend you days locked in your room, you have heard of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) by now. However, you may not have all the facts. To most, OWS started on September 17th 2011 at Zuccotti Park, but it really began in July in Canada of all places. Bloggers for Canadian magazine, Adbusters, said, “[W]e want to see 20,000 people flood into lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months.” Occupiers wanted to fight for “one simple demand” and follow the example of the protesters in Egypt and other places around in the world participating in the nonviolent revolutionary movement, which is being called the Arab Spring. Their one demand called for “a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington.” Only about 1,000 protesters arrived on the first day, labeling the movement a bust, and forcing those involved to question whether OWS would die out before it ever got started. Instead of pushing harder for their one issue, they expanded the cause to make room for other issues. Occupiers issued a list of 23 grievances against major corporations in place of their original demand. Since then, OWS has grown not only in numbers, but the number of related movements has increased as well.
Occupy Wall Street has now become Occupy Together. Occupy groups meet in over 1,500 cites internationally. Protests are held in Nigeria, South Korea, Spain, the United Kingdom, and other countries. In some cases (the UK), it is American Occupiers leading the charge. The movement has shown no signs of slowing down, despite losing its media attention in the U.S. Occupiers compare themselves to the protesters of Egypt. If you make this comparison, it is clear that, despite the growth, Occupy has not met its primary goal: political change. It took less than three weeks to go from Egyptian protests beginning in Tahrir Square to President Hosni Mubarak’s resignation. Occupy in the U.S. has gone on for months and has not been met with the same results. In fact, it has been the opposite. The Occupiers have been met with force and have mostly been chased out of their “occupied zones” and out of the media. While the members are still around drumming up as much support as they can and attempting to alert the media to their demands, the media has not followed them. Instead the media circus has chosen to follow the movers and shakers of the Republican caucus and other more pressing political matters. Does this mean the Occupy Movement has failed? After all, it was met with force from every major city; there is even a meme featuring the policeman who pepper-sprayed peaceful protestors at University California Davis on November 18th, 2011. Every major city has repressed its Occupiers in some way shape or form. The November news was full of violent outbursts between Occupiers and the police force;
reports of veterans being sent to the hospital, old women being pepper sprayed, and a general refusal of any major government officials to listen to the movement’s demands. However, Occupy Wall Street and its sister movements have not gone away completely. As of early February 2012, there is a Political Science class at Roosevelt University in Chicago teaching the Occupy Movement. There are still local Occupy Movements in full swing, including some ISU students, such as Danielle Ryun, a sophomore majoring in History. She has participated not only in Occupy Des Moines, (and was arrested for standing up for her first amendment right to peacefully assemble), but also at Occupy the Courts in Washington D.C. Like many other people still dedicated to making change in the states, Ryun says that the Occupy Movement has always been about “returning democracy to the hands of the people, instead of [leaving it with]in the grip of corporations”. Ryun would like fellow students to think of “people power” when they think of the Occupy Movement. “Occupy is still in it’s infancy. In fact, we are fighting the same essential fight that other social justice movements have been fighting for over a century” she says and continues to fight for her cause. The Occupy Movement is, at its heart, a developing counterculture, demanding change and slowly but surely working toward it. People who believe in the power of democracy and have the courage to demand an America built on justice and equality help it along.
uhuru magazine / / S pring 2012 / / 27
Islamic America After the events of September 11, 2001, this population came more into the public eye than ever before. As a Research Center in 2010 native American, I have noticed a certain stigma attached to the faith by several of my peers. Being shoved into reports that there are over the spotlight by a small group of believers has forced the Muslim culture to adapt in a country that associates 2,500,000 Muslims living the whole with the part. In this tense and almost fearful environment, one wonders if Muslims in America truly in America. feel that they enjoy our nation’s promised freedom of religion. I visited the Darul Arqum Islamic Center in Ames and spoke to Sal Syed about the changes that the Muslim community has undergone in the past decade. Syed moved to America from southern India in the mid-1990s. He explains the Muslim community in Ames as being “pretty much like the United Nations,” being made up of people from places such as Africa, Malaysia, and Singapore as well as native Iowans. When asked about any changes in the atmosphere surrounding Muslim culture since 9/11, Syed said that problems existed even before 2001. The mosque in Ames opened in December 2001, after a long struggle with the city, which was resistant to the opening of a Muslim center in town. Syed explains the reason for this struggle as humanity’s fear of the unknown. Every country, he says, has its own problems to overcome when it comes to acceptance and tolerance of what is different or foreign. He draws the conversation around to America in particular, questioning the extent of our freedom of religion. “We think this an open society, but it is really a closed one… in America, we don’t mean freedom of religion for all but freedom of religion within the Judeo-Christian society. Everything has a different definition in America.” Is it truly a democracy, Syed posited, when our supposed freedoms are defined by our cultural standpoint? When every word is redefined in American terms? The question of ignorance is one that rings loud in this discussion. Do we, as Americans, simply fear what we do not know, or are we afraid of what we think we understand? Syed brought up the example of Sharia, the
A study conducted by the Pew
by RILEY DAWSON photos BRITTA MENNECKE designer JORDAN BECKER
moral code and religious law of Islam. Many Americans are up in arms about this code which they often view as incorrect, inhumane, and in opposition to what we see as “right.” One example of this resistance is the infamous Terry Jones, who in a mock trial found the Quran (a major source from which Sharia law is derived) “guilty” of such crimes as murder, rape and terrorism. As Jones, a pastor by trade, is a radical example of the Christian faith, so the stereotyped “terrorist” Muslim is the most radical incarnation of its culture. Syed explained that there are multiple different aspects and interpretations of Sharia law, and that the interpretation Americans fear most is the most radical, marginal interpretation. He expressed his desire to explain to Americans that the truth about Muslim culture is not what many may think; regrettably, he said, when our nation looks for examples it often turns to the most outspoken and radical example for an answer. “We
uhuru magazine / / S pring 2012 / / 29
We have become a country of picking on minorities, and once that is done [against the Muslim community] we will move on to some other minority.
HATE CRIMES AGAINST MUSLIMS IN AMERICA POST-9/11 (from the US Department of Justice website)
are supposed to tell them what we are like,” he said, “but we are not on the loudspeaker.” The martyred people, those in the middle who are caught in the conflict, become forgotten and marginalized while they are left to bear the brunt of our fear and opposition. Because of this seeming aversion to accepting Muslim culture in America, the community has become fragmented and defensive, Syed said. He expressed worry about inequality that leads to the perpetuation of this fear culture: “Every mosque in the country has been tapped…what about the churches? If the government taps the [Christian] churches, they will suffer for it. But they can get away with doing it to the mosques because we are the minority.” He alluded to the hate crimes enacted against members
United States officials have investigated over 800 incidents of violence, threats, vandalism or arson against Muslims and of the Muslim community since 9/11, and expressed individuals of Middle Eastern a sense of sorrow at the state of American democracy. origin since 9/11. These Democracy is indeed a majority rule, he said, and that rule incidents include the following. unfortunately acts against the Muslim community; the -2/23/2011: a man set fire to a majority is saying that exclusion and fear are legitimate playground outside a mosque policies, and so the disconnect continues between cultures. in Texas. He said of the current atmosphere in the country, “If -2006: a man blew up a van one person is hurt and we keep watching, it is not justice belonging to a Palestinianregardless of who it is. And that is what we have become; American family’s home. The we have become a country of picking on minorities, and van was parked outside of the once that is done [against the Muslim community] we family’s home at the time. will move on to some other minority. It’s not going to stop -May 2010: a former TSA somewhere, it’s going to continue.” employee verbally assaulted I asked Syed if, despite all of this worry and defense an elderly Somali man because in the Muslim community, there was still hope that the he believed the man to be state of the community will improve in the future. Yes, he a Muslim. said: “When people are pushed to their limits, they push -In Tennessee, three men back.” People, he said, will always come to seek the truth, spraypainted swastikas and to question the popular view and get to the root of any “white power” on a mosque problem. What is great about America, Syed said, is that it and subsequently started a fire is an experiment in progress. Unlike when slavery was the that destroyed the building common policy in the country, Syed says, Muslims today completely. They were at least have the freedom to practice, if not the acceptance sentenced to jail time in 2009, that they deserve and long for. He remains optimistic, with sentences ranging from 6 though: “Bad things happen in one night, good things to 15 years in prison. take years,” he says. “A scholar said that America is an -2006: a man sent threats via experiment in progress…in a few hundred years, things e-mail and voicemail to the have changed for the better, and not just for Muslims. I Director of the Arab American think that is the good thing about America, that things are Institute and members of the changing for the better. But it is a long fight.” Institute’s staff.
uhuru magazine / / S pring 2012 / / 31
by SARAH HUEMPFNER photos VALERIE LEMASTER designer ALEX REGISTER
Look at your bookshelf, or think of the books you have at home. Do you have anything by the following authors: Judy Blume, J K Rowling, Phillip Pullman, Sherman Alexie, Suzanne Collins, Laurie Halse Anderson, John Steinbeck, Mark Twain, Toni Morrison, Lois Lowry, Gary Paulson or Stephan Chbosky? If you do, you are harboring a work that has been either challenged or banned in the past 10 years. I know, some of you are blown away; how archaic, to ban books, especially ones as harmless as some of these. But it happens, more often than many of us would like to admit. Books are banned or challenged for various reasons. Mostly to “protect” children from unhealthy exposure to mature themes such as sex, violence, nontraditional gender roles, or language that may not be appropriate. While it is up to individuals whether or not they or their children read these books, it is another matter entirely when they try to stop other people from accessing them. According to the American Library Association, “A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials.” So even if a book is challenged, it is another group imposing its expectations or moral restrictions on a wider population. This is a violation of the First Amendment. The freedom of speech issue in literature is nothing new. It goes back to the 17th century when books and other manuscripts were banned for religious reasons, most notably John Eliot’s The Christian Commonwealth. It was banned by the New England government for advocating a system of government based on overthrowing the king. However, first amendment challenges really took off in the mid 20th century, especially after the Obscenity Trial for Allen Ginsberg’s famous poem, “Howl” in
1957. Censored by U.S. Customs officials because of Ginsberg’s “obscene” language, including references to sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) and illegal drugs. However, it wasn’t long before many began to protest the banning, citing the artistic vision of its author. Of course members of the Beat movement backed it, but academics and well know poets also supported Ginsberg and the banning was revoked. “Howl” isn’t the only poem to be challenged, but for the most part, it is novels that cause the greatest commotion. Lolita, written by Vladimir Nabokov in 1955, details the life of professor Humbert Humbert and his sexual relationship with a 12 year old. It is very clear to see why some object to this book’s presence in public libraries. After all, sexual exploits between consenting adults are bad enough, but a child and a middle-aged man is socially unacceptable in the 21st century. However, from a literary standpoint, Nabokov’s prose is masterful and his work is clouded by a subject matter many find obscene. Nabokov’s work has been banned or challenged somewhere almost every year since the American release in 1958 (even though it sold 100,000 copies its first week). However, it is in works like this that the First Amendment is truly taken to task. Should this book be left on library shelves to influence future generations because it’s ‘art’? Some argue no, because children need to be protected; others cite the lasting effects rape has on children and claim leaving this work on shelves condones the abuse of children. There is, however the problem of personal freedoms. Should this book be banned from all libraries forever, overlooking its prose, its characterization, its literary elements that have stood the test of time because of its subject matter? No, of course not. However, should parents and guardians have the right to refuse to let their uhuru magazine / / S pring 2012 / / 33
children read it? Of course. There is a fine line between protecting children and stepping on the rights of others. Another, slightly more recent issue, is one of the most challenged and banned authors in the United States: Judy Blume. I know what you’re thinking, dear readers. Judy Blume!? She wrote things like Superfudge and Are You There, God? It’s Me Margaret and so many other “comingof-age” style young adult novels that taught me good lessons about life, such as how to accept others, to love yourself regardless of what others say about you, how to get along with people who can be difficult and so on and so forth. How could someone like that be banned more often than someone who wrote about child rape? The answer, dear reader, is that Judy Blume’s works deal with things many parents feel their children aren’t capable of handling: sexuality, the existence of God, body image, friendship and divorce. The Religious Right has targeted Blume for this, citing her ambiguity regarding religious issues. However, this is a classic case of imposing one group’s view on all and restricting the access of others to materials based on an arbitrary morality However, some authors are banned based on racial stereotypes that are socially unacceptable. For example, Mark Twain’s classic The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is constantly being called into question for use of the n-word. And while it is appropriate to the setting in which the action takes place, it is questioned whether or not it is appropriate for reader consumption in a so-called ‘post-racial’ society. Use of the n-word is a common objection to many African American novelists describing African American culture, regardless of century. While the word is offensive to some and brings to mind horrible memories of America’s ugly past, it has also wormed its way into contemporary American culture. The N word is common in most hip-hop and rap albums heard by many thousands of people every day, and even though censored versions of their albums and songs are available, most choose to listen to the original; the same is true of literature. While the words used are not acceptable in conversation, using them to evoke certain feelings in a reader or describe a time or place is appropriate and shouldn’t be censored. Language and mature themes aren’t’ the only reason books are censored. Many, including the first book mentioned, are challenged or banned because the go against the government. Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 is one such example. Written in the 1950’s, it is a cautionary tale of what happens when government goes awry and freedom of expression is eradicated in favor of uniformity and complacence. (Sound familiar, 21st century?) While many accused Bradbury of being anti-Christian, it is his anti-government message that caught the censors’ attention. Another such example is George Orwell’s opus 1984 (which has found an new incarnation in Haruki
Murakami’s 1Q84 should you be interested). Of course many students have read it and are familiar with its adage that “ WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH;" some may even look upon Ross Hall and see a resemblance to the Ministry of Truth. Orwell’s masterpiece has influenced culture a great deal, giving us buzzwords to describe the big government to be feared such as “Big Brother” and “doublethink” (which means to accept two contradictory beliefs as absolutely correct in distinct contextual situations; it’s very clear to me that we do this all the time!) Most governments would not welcome a novel with such enormous cultural impact, of course. Last and certainly not least, there are those books which become a cultural phenomenon and lead to conservative movements for their removal. I am referring to those books such as Harry Potter or His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman or, more recently, Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games. This last one may surprise those of you who have read it, but its opponents are claiming it has sexually explicit material and violence. The real reason is it portrays a vision of America that most aren’t comfortable with yet. It’s a portrait of the not-so-distant future in which people watch other people kill each other for entertainment, where food is a scarce commodity, where the rules are always changing and there is no one to trust; given reality television, this isn’t far off. A mother in New Hampshire was the first to lead the charge against this series, and many other states followed suit. While few have been successful, it has drawn attention to the violence and ‘immoral’ content in the book. Those of you who have read it will know that Katniss has much more on her mind than sex and murder! Most challenges and banning movements are lead by parents; more than any other group, in fact. Is this because they are malicious, conservative, ignorant bigots? Of course not; they merely want what is best for their children. (Or so I try to remind myself). A lot of times, parents don’t even read the books before leading the town with their torches and pitchforks. They see what seems to be an outrageously offensive passage and react. However, this is not the most effective course of action. It leads to the removal of books from library shelves and that helps no one. Instead when something offends you, before reaching for your cellular phone and calling up your senator to voice your outrage, read it carefully. Think outside your own little sphere of experience, realize that not everyone has the same views that you do. If it does nothing for you, exercise your freedom of expression: don’t read it. Read something else. But just because a text offends you, do not take that to mean the text itself is offensive. Reader response is a powerful thing, but we, as a intelligent bibliophiles, should use our powers for good.
APRIL 12
2012
FIRST
DAY
AMENDMENT Silence is a symptom of submission. First Amendment Day is an annual, nationallevel celebration of action. The first amendment of the U.S. constitution guarantees our ability to shape the world by fighting what we oppose and promoting what we support. Yet surveys show that many Americans take these freedoms for granted or even complain that the first amendment grants too much freedom.
design & illustration DONNY CHEN content provided by GREENLEE SCHOOL
It was such a survey in 2002 that sparked Mark Witherspoon, the advisor of the Iowa State Daily, to create a celebration to both inform and embody the freedoms guaranteed under the first amendment. The tenth annual First Amendment Day will be held on April 12 to loudly demonstrate the importance of our freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, petition and the press. Demonstrate your own resistance to submission by getting involved. Experience a two-hour concert of censored songs played by award-winning musicians, 足participate in a competitive poetry slam for prizes, argue your position in public soapbox debates on central campus, represent your student group at the First Amendment Partners exhibit or join one
you discover, questions a panel of experts about the role of religion in academic settings, listen to the Iowa high school teacher who took his school to court to protect the rights of his students, enjoy free lunch and entertainment on central campus, and spread the word to others. Your freedom to enact change in this world is not limited to a single day. Speak your mind, practice your religion and gather with others whenever you think the need arises. Visit the First Amendment Day website for the full schedule or for contact information. First Amendment Day is sponsored by the Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication, Lee Enterprises, First Amendment Center, Leo Mores Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, Iowa State Daily, ISU Committee on Lectures Sponsored by GSB, Amnesty International and the Iowa High School Press Association.
uhuru magazine / / S pring 2012 / / 35