Writ Large Volume 5, Issue 1

W L

RIT ARGE

UMASS BOSTON FALL 2017

VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1

4 EQUITY VS. EQUALITY: FAIRNESS OR SAMENESS?

by Tenley Spataro

6 DOLLS R US

by Halima Abdi

8 A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON COLORISM

CONTENTS

by Remona Kanyat

10 DEFAULTING ON DREAMS: ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND LOW-INCOME STUDENTS

by Matthew Donohue

12 THE PRIVILEGE OF EDUCATION

by Kelsey Hale

14 THE DISADVANTAGE OF BEING “UN-AMERICAN”

by Katharina Livar

16 HEADS OR TAILS, YOU’RE STILL A DIME: WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AMERICAN

by Sidra Afzal

18 ONCE AGAIN

by Jessica Perez

20 IMAGINE COMMUNISM IN THE UNITED STATES

by Jade Chu

22 3.94 MILES

by Colleen Shea

24 THE HIDDEN IMAGE

by Jay Adams

26 WHEN DO STRAIGHT WHITE MALES HAVE THE LEAST PRIVILEGE?

by Emily Griffin

28 REFLECTIONS ON PRIVILEGE

by Samuel O’Neill

30 PRIVILEGE, WOMEN, AND HARD SCIENCE

by Ahmed Al Salah

32 WOMEN CEOs: WINNERS AT A LOSING GAME...NO MORE

by Natalia Mirabito

34 FREEDOM TO LIVE IN COLOR

by Julia Graves

36 THE DISTRIBUTION OF HEALTH

by Margaret Gillis

38 PEARLY-WHITE PRIVILEGE

by Luana Melo

40 CIVILIZED

by Drew Oakley

42 A LOOK AT PRIVILEGE

by Kellie Ruccolo and Samuel O’Neill

Copyeditors Chanel An Vanessa Boatwright Charlotte Burlingame Roberta Cappa Meghan Connolly Annie Coyne Matthew Donohue Julia Huynh Jithin Jacob Jill Kamperides Jessica Lambert Natalia Mirabito Jessica Perez Laura Saucier

Editor-in-Chief Kellie Ruccolo Managing Editor Samuel O’Neill Contact editor@writlargemag.org Theme Unpacking Privilege

Special Thanks Michael Metzger Kahrim Wade Jason Roush Rajini Srikanth Megan Rokop Welina Farah Diane D’Arrigo Jeffrey Mitchell Karen Suyemoto Joyce Morgan Mohammed Uddin Jungwoo Sonn Honors College

The cover art was created by Caitlin Towle. Of the piece, titled “From Womb to Cuffs,” Towle says: The issue of mass incarceration of young African American men and the issue of African American children growing up under the parentage of single mothers are related to one another and caused by the systematic oppression of African American people in the United States. It goes beyond a set of disadvantages or lack of privileges—it is an active form of systemic racism that creates impossible circumstances for African American men, women, and children.

Thank you to Wyndham Juneau and Michelle Stuart for inspiring the theme.

Letter from the Editor I’ve come across a lot of people in my life who are simply unaware of privilege. Whether they’ve never been exposed to people who are different than they are or they’ve just never been made aware that certain people or groups of people are more likely to have a “better” life experience, they just simply don’t understand the concept. This magazine serves to share everyone’s story—good, bad, pretty, ugly. We want everyone to have a voice to share their stories. It’s important to unpack privilege so that everyone can understand who is sitting where at the table—if they’re invited at all. There are people sitting at the head of the table and people on the outskirts. Once we have an understanding of that, then we can work to make sure everyone has an equal footing, an equal voice. One day we will have a round table, but first we must understand why and how we got here in the first place.

I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY’RE COMING FROM on the NFL protests

by G.R. Peterson Illustrated by Laura Saucier “I completely understand where they’re coming from,” my mother tells me in a sympathetic voice over the phone.

And I imagine asking her: “You understand what it’s like to be called out by one of the most powerful leaders in the world, who then suggests you should be fired from your job?”

“You understand what it’s like to be called a “son of a bitch” by a world leader?”

“You understand what it’s like to be bullied by people who are more powerful than you can imagine being?”

“You understand what it’s like to stand up, sit down, or kneel with dignity while people disrespect you? When your fans from just a moment ago start booing you?”

“You understand what it’s like to be made to feel like you don’t deserve what America can give?”

“You understand what it’s like to love and hate the country in which you were born a legal citizen?”

“You understand what it’s like to be so bitter and angry you want to spit in someone’s face when they tell you to be grateful to be an American?”

“You understand what it’s like to have to compartmentalize America in order to believe it’s loveable? Admirable? Significant? Do you understand how much historical knowledge that takes? Do you understand how tiring it is to do that work? To sort and weed and find and keep and maintain that information?”

“You understand what it’s like to know your ancestors arrived in America against their will?”

“You understand what it’s like to realize your skin is a color that has been a sign for others to dehumanize your ancestors and bully, disinvest, or just plain ignore you and definitely your descendants for generations yet to come?”

“You understand what it’s like to explain to your son, and, if need be, lay into him harshly, about how to behave around policemen?”

“You understand what it’s like for people to constantly have negative expectations of you, pasted over you as if the real you didn’t exist?”

“You understand what it’s like to be black in America?”

I imagine asking all these questions of my white, lower-middle class mother.

And I imagine her ears finally hearing, her eyes finally seeing.

(And I know that I, like her, can listen, can see. And yet she and I can never fully understand.)

EQUITY VS. EQUALITY: FAIRNESS OR SAMENESS?

by Tenley Spataro Illustrated by Laura Saucier

To understand equity and equality in the context of educational institutions, such as high schools and universities, one must understand how each term can be applied and which one is more beneficial to how these institutions can achieve diversity and academic success. When discussing equity and equality, without knowing their definitions, the terms can often be conflated and misused. However, it is important to know that equity and equality are not the same. They cannot be used interchangeably because they address different issues and have different definitions.

Equity refers to fairness and, in education, is when schools recognize that some students need more help than others and, as a result, provide them with the resources they need to be given equal opportunities.

Equality, on the other hand, means everything is the same for everyone and, when applied to education, would mean that everyone has the same chances of getting into schools and would have the same resources to ensure graduation.

The difference between the two is that equity means trying to close the achievement gap while equality does not. Equity means acknowledging that some students may be at a disadvantage academically or because of their family or personal background. Equality may mean acknowledging this, but focuses more on eliminating discrimination in admissions than solving the problem after acceptance.

While colleges want diversity, they do not want too much of it or they may be blamed for discriminating against the majority. Such blame has happened as a reaction to affirmative action.

Discrimination against college applicants based on race or gender was made illegal in the Civil Right Act of 1964. As a result of this act, there was a 61 percent increase of minority enrollment at colleges and universities between fall 1986 and fall 1996. However, since not showing bias in college applications is virtually impossible,

WL | 4

schools adopted affirmative action policies to ensure diversity. Affirmative action is one way a college can show equity. It is said to level the playing field for everyone during the college admissions process, but the college may also use its policies to favor one group over another. This is a cause of debate, because affirmative action is currently viewed as an outdated policy. Despite the concerns about affirmative action, such programs encourage colleges and universities to reach out to minorities and offer them the

support they need for academic success. It also makes the institutions more appealing with a more diverse student population. The need for affirmative action programs is evident from states who have passed affirmative action bans. California was the first state to pass an affirmative action ban in 1996, with the approval of Proposition 206. This ban led to decreased minority admissions of 61 percent at University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley), and 36 percent at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Since California, seven other states have passed similar bans. In these states, there is a “23 percentage point drop in the chance of admission for minority students…relative to nonminority students.”

In reviewing a college application, the factors being looked at are the background, grades, and test scores of the students. While it is generally believed grades are what make or break a declination letter being sent out, it is the background of a student mostly taken into consideration if the individual grades of that student are comparable to the grades of

another student. Admission is now more about social circumstances than it is about academic merit. If a student shows “exceptional talent,” then they are more likely to be accepted than a student with the same grades but, compared to the exceptional student, is average.

Here is where equity comes in. Equity refers to fairness in education and ensures students coming from a low education background have access to the same, or better, resources as their classmates who are from a higher education background, so that they can catch up. Low-income families from high-poverty neighborhoods often face inequities in their education, where they have fewer resources and reputable teachers, along with a lack of advanced classes.

Low-income students and students of color often need more resources to succeed academically. Equity closes the achievement gap by providing them with the resources they need to succeed. However, equity is more than simply giving students these resources and wishing them success. It is an ongoing process, especially for high schools to achieve the same level of equity as seen in colleges. To address what needs to be done to move towards equity, the different types of inequities need to be identified.

First, societal inequity results from preexisting bias and prejudice rooted in society and targeted at minorities. Minorities coming from a low-income background are more likely to be discriminated against from the beginning because they cannot afford a “better” education institution. Thus, when applying to a reputable college, they have more chances of being denied in comparison to a student from a high-income background who could attend schools which provided the student with all the resources needed to succeed and available all in one place.

With societal inequity, socioeconomic status comes into play, which results in inequity from being in a low-income household. Students from

these households enroll in college at lower rates due to their financial situation. There are also schools who, because they have a low funding, have fewer resources, such as fewer teachers and opportunities. Students who are in these schools are at a disadvantage as they lack a wellestablished faculty and a range of educational opportunities. These opportunities include advanced courses, extracurricular activities, and sports teams.

Cultural inequity becomes a problem when students from diverse backgrounds may be unfamiliar with American school systems.

They do not know what is expected from them or what their best option is. In addition, what also holds them at a disadvantage is their unfamiliarity with the customs of another country and the new language barrier. There are few resources offered to help these students and these resources are usually found outside of a school, not within or during the application process. Socioeconomic and cultural inequities can also tie into familiar inequity when parents with a low-income cannot afford outside educational resources compared to students from a high-income family. Some parents may not be able to pay attention to the education of their child either due to different circumstances, which leads to the child being his or her own support system. A student who can only depend on themselves and whose parents did not earn a degree in a high school or college are less likely to attend college than students whose parents could help them with their homework and offer them advice based on their own experiences.

Other inequities are programmatic, staffing, and assessment. These are dependent on the school. Programmatic involves how school programs are structured. Certain students may be placed in lower-level classes with lower expectations because of their race. Students can be placed in lower-level classes even though the they might not be challenging enough for them.

Without the ability to enter higher-level courses and without having advanced courses as an option, the classes the student take will not be as admirable as a student who takes all advanced placement courses. Along with this, wealthier schools can afford more experienced teachers and staff than schools located in poor communities.

Students able to attend these schools receive a better quality education than students who have fewer and undesirable teachers. However, with staffing comes discrimination in employment, which leads to a lack of diversity in school faculty. This lack of diversity may lead to bias while teaching by focusing on one point of view when teaching a history lesson, for example.

Assessment inequity comes from students being at a disadvantage when completing assessments

because of certain disabilities which the school cannot accommodate for and the content of the assessment may prove challenging for the student. In addition, how the assessment is administered may also be a source of inequity, since not all students have easy access to a computer. Preparation for an assessment may also require certain materials, which may not be affordable to low-income students.

Having identified the different inequities, schools need to offer more learning opportunities to help students build skills in the classroom. Such learning opportunities may be offering advanced courses, establishing clubs for students to join, or changing how existing classes are taught to better prepare students for college and make them more confident in their abilities. For this to happen, schools need to hire qualified and knowledgeable staff who can guide the students and show a passion for the subject they are hired to teach. The teachers should be able to work with the students and offer help to students who are struggling more than others.

Along with teachers, schools should provide some sort of assistance for students inside and outside of school. If teachers cannot handle any personal problems a student may be facing in his or her home life, the school needs to provide a support system to help students stay focused in class. High school should be preparing students for college and encouraging them to seek a career. They should be focusing on keeping students in school instead of heavily discipling students who always disobey school rules. The school system needs to support its teachers and staff to encourage them to challenge their students as a way of helping them prepare for college. Other resources, such as books, should also be available for all students, even those who cannot afford to purchase school required materials.

If equity is not the solution, the alternative for high schools would be working toward equality. This, however, is not the preferred solution, as it cannot be achieved and would not prove effective. Because equality refers to equal treatment, it is not the same as equity.

When applied to schools, equality addresses discrimination and how everyone deserves an equal chance of acceptance into schools. If it were to go beyond that, equality would ensure the same treatment of all students. It would erase differences, but also ignore the needs of students who have not received a reputable education.

Students at a disadvantage would graduate with the same disadvantage and students who are fast learners may be held back. The biggest promise of educational equality would be giving lowincome students a chance to apply to schools and a chance of being accepted without taking

their financial status into account.

Colleges have been working toward equity by providing students with the resources they need on campus through financial aid, advisors, different student services, experienced teachers, and access to computers and a library. In the fight for equity and equality, the latter, if it could be achieved, is not the better solution for school systems. When applying to a college, one would like to believe that they have the same chances as everyone else of getting into the college they applied for. However, it is widely known that this is not true. The college admission process is not void of favoritism, discrimination, or biases.

Equality in college would give students access to the same resources without any biases. Everyone would have the same chances of graduating without one student having to put in more work than another to reach the same education level.

Students would be placed into the same level courses without having an upper hand over another classmate in their same grade.

I used to wonder why there was a question about race on college applications, especially after checking off what my race was and then being asked to specify what type of Asian I was.

Did it really matter? It wasn’t until someone in my high school told me Asians have a disadvantage when applying for colleges. If I were to be accepted because of my grades, I would be expected to keep those grades, but, since I was also Asian, there was even more of an expectation for me to reflect the grades on my transcript. The overall disadvantage of having colleges know your race beforehand is that they can decline your application based on your ethnicity.

Because of this, some of the benefits of equality would be the loss of affirmative action and competition between schools and students.

If students were accepted based on the principle of equality, more students are likely to be enrolled into a college and the college would expect the same from every student. This would give equal chances of being accepted to all potential students and, once accepted, a lowincome student would not need to find themself competing with a higher-income student.

However, the policy of equality would also have to be applied in the application selection process. This would prove challenging because there could not be any bias or discrimination in deciding. Thus, the diversity levels of the college would clearly decrease and the criteria for accepting an application would have to change to become broader, as an application could not be denied unjustifiably. Equity, on the other hand, allows selective choosing as long as colleges provide students with the same resources to help them in their academic success.

WL | 5

DOLLS R US

by Halima Abdi Illustrated by Brianna Nguyen

I was born in a small village in Kenya where everyone knew each other and we all faced the same struggles to survive. As soon as my family could, we moved to Somalia. Then, we moved again—this time to the United States—when I was five.

During that time, I had never seen anything close to what Americans called a doll. It was a completely new concept to me when I was introduced to them at the age of eight. Ten years later, I noticed something incredible about the collection of dolls I preferred. There was a connection between the dolls and the society that we live in today.

As we grow up, society becomes more concrete around us. Our list of social influences grows more and we eventually start to build our ideal selves. A person might think that the building of our ideal selves starts in our teenage years, but what if it doesn’t? What if we start

WL | 6

building our identities at an early age and it actually affects us as we grow into adulthood?

What if it is all due to the toys we played with as children that actually helped shape our society as we know it?

In Western civilizations, children are given toys right after they are born. This is a complete contrast to the Eastern country I was born in, where the only things I remember playing with were pebbles, sticks, and plastic bags wrapped around each other to make a “ball.” In Africa, I was not aware of the American toys that we were missing out on, but once I got here I definitely noticed. I realized that once babies were born they were given a surplus of toys, and that in some instances it did not matter the gender of the toy. A baby girl could have a male teddy bear or toy, and a baby boy could have a female doll or toy. In fact, it was considered an educational benefit for them to be in contact with these

different kinds of toys, because it would help “spark their imaginations and encourage them to interact with others.”1 But as time went by and their children grew up, the parents started buying them toys specific to their gender.

As the children transitioned from daycare and kindergarten to elementary school, their toys became either masculine or feminine.

When I asked my guy friends, I found out that boys were mostly given toys like cars, trucks, and action figures to play with. They compared their cars and wrestling or superhero action figures to their friends’, and boasted when they had the better or newer version. This usually prompted the other boys to go and beg their parents to buy them the same. While the boys lived in a world full of toys with colors like green, red, and blue, the girls lived in a world of pink and Barbie dolls.

In 1945, Mattel Creations was founded

by Ruth and Elliot Handler, and on March 9,

1959 Ruth introduced the world to Barbie, the teenage fashion model we know today. Before Barbie, the most popular toys had been baby and toddler dolls. Ruth Handler actually came up with the idea of a Barbie after watching her daughter Barbara and her friends play with paper dolls. They used them to imagine adult or teenage make-believe where they played roles like high school cheerleaders, college students, or adult careers. Ruth Handler realized “... that experimenting with the future from a safe distance through pretend play was an important part of growing up.”2 At the beginning of her debut in the 1950s, Barbie mirrored the sophisticated glamour of stars like Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor, donning pale, ivory skin, long slim legs, and a narrow hips and waist, with either blonde or brunette hair.

The 1960s saw Barbie mirroring the First Lady, Jackie Kennedy, in fashion and hair style, but it was also the first time that she was introduced with blue irises and a third red hair color.

In the 1970s, Malibu Barbie debuted with an open smile, showing pearly white teeth, and with her sparkling blue eyes facing forward for the first time. Meanwhile, Superstar Barbie came with an even wider smile and fuller hair.

The “We Girls Can Do Anything” campaign launched in the 1980s, with Barbie reminding girls that they can be anything they want to be.

In the 1990s, Barbie made her first presidential campaign debut and Totally Hair Barbie celebrated the big hair craze.

Early 2000s Barbie got a more athletic physique, a flexible waist and her very first belly button.2 Throughout this whole time, though, Barbie did not showcase the many different skin tones and body types of the young girls around the world.

Like many girls, I grew up and went through elementary school playing with Barbie dolls. I was introduced to them by a social worker who was helping my family and I assimilate into American culture. I remember my first Barbie was wearing a very pretty pink dress, and she looked just like my social worker. They shared the same blue sparkling eyes, long blonde hair, and pale, ivory skin. I was amazed by how much they had in common, but I never failed to compare myself to the doll. In school, I was exposed to girls who had more in common with my doll than I did. During play times I noticed how well they matched with their dolls, and

how easy it was for them to call the Barbie their daughters. I could only go as far as calling the doll my friend. The only comfort was knowing that the other half of my friends could not relate to their dolls either, since they were Black or Hispanic.

Society had already started to separate us as early as elementary school. Us girls unconsciously started to separate ourselves into two groups: those who were expected to have it all and those who would never be enough to have it all. Most of us saw Barbie as our role model; we wanted to be just like her. We deemed her successful, beautiful, and the ideal girl that people would like. When we moved on to middle school and high school, boys left behind their action figures and girls left behind their Barbie dolls, but they kept their self-hate locked inside.

Albert Einstein once said: “It is easier to break an atom than a prejudice.”3 In the 1940s, a series of psychological experiments known as the “doll tests” were started by psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark. They studied the psychological effects of segregation on African American children. They used four dolls that were similar in everything except the color of their skin. Then the children were asked what the race of the dolls were and which they would prefer. A majority of them preferred the white doll and described it in a positive light, while the Black dolls were described in a negative light. The subjects were aged between three and seven years old. In the end, the Clarks concluded that due to “prejudice, discrimination, and segregation” there was a feeling of inferiority among the African American children that damaged their self-esteem.4 Barbies came along 10 years later, but the Clarks had already proved just how young we are when the self-hate locks inside of us due to the social influences that surround us.

Today we ask ourselves the same things that kids back in the 1940s used to ask themselves.

“Why am I a different color than them?” “Why can’t I be the same as them?” We don’t see each other as the same because as young children we were exposed to and focused on the “better” version of ourselves, who had features like blue eyes and pale skin. This damaged our selfesteem and cornered a part of our mind into an inferiority complex that stayed with us as more outside influences poured in.

About 90 percent of girls between the ages of three and 11 own a Barbie doll.5 Barbie has a thin

but curvy shaped body that is likely unattainable to not just girls and women of color, but girls and women of all skin tones. The muscular bodies of action figures have a similar unattainable standard for the boys who used to play with them.6 If social influences, like the media and movies, depict a lean and muscular actor with a thin and curvy actress that sometimes resembles Barbie, then what would stop children from feeling inferior? Now they have it in their heads that they will never be like those people with the blonde hair, blue eyes, and perfect bodies. For some, this feeling of inferiority will stay with them no matter where they go. These feelings form during a time when children are just starting to make decisions about the problems that have been plaguing the world for thousands of years.

As a girl who had not been exposed to dolls until I was eight years old, I ended up having Barbie dolls until I was in eighth grade. I didn’t play with the dolls and I refused to say I “owned” them, but I called them my best friends.

Together, my sister and I ended up collecting over 10 Barbies and about two or three Black Bratz dolls. When my cousins came over my house they would fight over the Barbies and ignore the Bratz. Looking back on it, I noticed that it was wrong for them to ignore the Bratz because it was 2010, not the 1950s. Toys and dolls had developed more. There were now Bratz dolls that had different skin colors and tones. However, Barbies were still popular and they had the features that most of us would never have. Even though in 2010 we had our first black president and most things were starting to change to better fit our society, most young girls still perfered the past models of the dolls.

As of 2016, Mattel has introduced a new line of Barbies that is finally diverse, in both skin tone and body shape. According to an article written in The Atlantic written by Megan Garber, Barbie is “...trying to do a better job of representing the people who play with her. And a better job, at the same time, of affecting who those people will become.”7 Mattel’s expansion of the Barbie dolls represents the diversity that this world must accept it in order to move forward from racism.

Our society should have social influences that teach us to love ourselves and those around us no matter the skin tone or shapes of our bodies.

In the end, all one needs is to love and accept. As said by the influential K-pop group BTS’s Rap Monster, “Love myself, love yourself.”

Staff, Parenting Today. “Educational Benefits of Providing Toys To Children.” Child Development Institute, Child Development Institute, LLC, 16 Sept. 2011.

Mattel. “History of Barbie.” Barbie, Global Markets, 2009.

FanpageMedia. “Doll Test - The Effects of Racism on Children (ENG).” YouTube, YouTube, 21 Mar. 2016.

4 LDF Staff. “Doctors Kenneth and Mamie Clark and ‘The Doll Test’ .” Brown at 60: The Doll Test | NAACP LDF, LDF, 2016.

5 Cash, T.F, and Pruzinsky, T. (2002). Body image: a handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice. New York: Guilford Press.

6 Anschutz, Doeschka J., and Rutger C. M. E. Engels. “The Effects of Playing with Thin Dolls on Body Image and Food Intake in Young Girls.” Sex Roles, Springer US, Nov. 2010.

7 Garber, Megan. “Barbie’s Hips Don’t Lie.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 28 Jan. 2016.

1 2 3

WL | 7

A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON COLORISM

by Remona Kanyat Photographed by Remona Kanyat

Colorism has existed in the world for centuries and has deep roots embedded in the history in the United States and many other parts of the world. It’s still an issue that people have to deal with today.

Colorism refers to discrimination based on a person’s skin color. Colorism affords privilege to those with lighter skin over those with darker skin. There is a clear-cut privilege found to this day for those with lighter skin tones over those with darker skin tones. However, there is not enough acknowledgement of the issue of colorism privilege, and not many people are aware that they may have this type of inherent bias when they see someone’s skin tone.

Colorism should not be confused with racism, although colorism is born of racism.

If racism did not exist, colorism and the issues regarding varying skin tones would not exist either. Colorism can be defined as “prejudicial or preferential treatment of same-race people based solely on their color.”1 This definition helps differentiate colorism from racism because colorism refers to the partiality of someone within the same racial group based solely on their skin tone.

Colorism, in the United States, can be said to have roots in slavery. Slave owners often favored and gave preferential treatment to slaves with fairer skin complexions. This was usually due to the fact that slaves with fairer skin tones were often the children of the slaves owners, resulting from rape. Although slave owners did not recognize their mixed-race children as their own kin, they did give them privileges that slaves with darker complexions did not get.

This advantage manifested as slaves with fairer complexions were allowed to work indoors as house slaves, as opposed to working in the fields under the scorching sun. This led to the idea that having light skin was an advantage in the slave community, and it also created animosity between the slaves because of that advantage.

Colorism did not stop with the end of slavery in the United States. In post-slavery black communities in America, those with lighter skin enjoyed employment opportunities that darker complexion African Americans did not. This explains why light-skinned African Americans accounted for the majority of upper-

WL | 8

class families in black communities around the country.2 This then further equated light skin and privilege as the same in the black community, as light skin was seen as the more desirable or superior skin tone to have because of the benefits that came along with it.

We can see that the ideas of colorism in the United States have carried into the presentday. The effects of colorism are palpable in the socioeconomic conditions of people of color in America. Research has found that colorism is linked to lower income, fewer job prospects, lower marriage rates, and longer prison terms for people with darker complexions. A study involving more than 12,000 African American women imprisoned in a North Carolina facility found that lighter-skinned black women received shorter prison sentences than darkerskinned black women. Darker-skinned black defendants were also two times more likely than lighter-skinned black defendants to receive the death penalty for crimes involving white victims.2 Another study found that employers, of any race, preferred lighter-skinned black men to darker-skinned black men, regardless of their qualifications.1 Research has also found that lighter-skinned African Americans were more likely to have completed more years of schooling, have higher salaries, and have more prominent jobs than darker-skinned African Americans.3 The socioeconomic effects of colorism apply to or affect not only African Americans, but also people of other races in the United States.

Research has found that Mexican Americans with light skin also earn more money, complete more years of education, live in more integrated neighborhoods, and have better mental health than darker-skinned Mexican Americans.1 Research has also found that light-skinned Latinos make, on average, $5,000 more than darker-skinned Latinos.2 These findings show that colorism is not just a conceptual idea that you read or hear about; it has real-life implications that affect major aspects of people’s lives, such as their ability to make a living and the fairness that they will see in the criminal justice system.

Colorism plays a huge role, not only in workforce and criminal justice system

inequality, but also when it comes to beauty standards for women. Fair skin is associated with beauty, whereas having dark skin is not considered beautiful. According to some reports, light-skinned black women are more likely to get married than darker-skinned black women; there is a 15 percent greater chance of marriage for a light-skinned black woman according to some surveys.2 Whitening creams have become bestsellers in America. MexicanAmerican women in Arizona, California, and Texas have even reported to have suffered from mercury poisoning while attempting to bleach their skin using whitening creams.

These ideas and standards about the fairness of one’s skin equating to beauty are not only true in the United States, but also in many cultures around the world. Whitening creams are very popular in Asian countries. Colorism is a big problem in South-Asian countries, specifically India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. In India, colorism is a tremendous issue. Skin fairness is associated with not only beauty but also intelligence, status, and privilege. The idea of colorism in South Asia may have originated as early as the era of the British conquest of India.

British colonialism reinforced the hierarchy of the Indian caste system, which is a form of social stratification for Hindus, and most often equated higher castes and a higher power status with lighter skin. This could be because those who were not of a high caste or social class had to do manual labor outdoors, which usually caused them to have darker skin, compared to those who did not have to do manual labor because they were of higher social classes. Postcolonial India continued with these ideas, skin fairness was put on such a high pedestal that it was continued to be sought after and still is.

Today in India, the clearest way that you can see the results of colorism is in the extensive popularity of skin-bleaching products, the most well-known brand being Fair & Lovely, which is marketed to Indian women. When I watch Indian channels at home, or when I visit India and see advertisement billboards, the most common advertisement you will see is for skinbleaching products. The message that being light skinned equals beauty and high class is constantly perpetuated in Indian media. We

see this not only in advertisements but also in the Bollywood movie industry, which is the fastest growing movie market in the world. The actresses are unbelievably fair and light skinned, and that is, for the most part, the only image you will see for the leading roles. Indian celebrities often endorse those skin-whitening products.

Interestingly enough, men are also not spared from colorism in India. There are many skinwhitening products targeted toward Indian men as well; a variation of Fair & Lovely aimed toward men is called Fair & Handsome. Famous male actors in Bollywood also endorse these products intended for men to lighten their skin color.

This idea has affected many Indian women, diminishing their selfconfidence and self-image.

Not only do the images in the media bolster this idea, but also close family members and friends who have a light-skin-is-morefavorable bias. Colorism is deeply internalized in many Indians, both those who live in India and those who have emigrated to other countries, like the United States. As an Indian American myself, I have followed these issues for years and I have witnessed it firsthand when talking to family or visiting India.

I have listened to how highly light-skinned girls are regarded in India, how the first mention of a girl’s beauty is followed by a comment about her skin tone. I have seen and heard of women being rejected for marriage because they had darker skin. I have listened to friends being affected by comments made by family members about their dark skin tone, harming their selfconfidence for years. As a child, I heard mothers tell their daughters not to play outside for too long in the sun; when we were outside, I heard girls my age saying that they needed to get into the shade so that they wouldn’t get dark, blocking the sun off their face with their hands. I 1 2 3

personally have also dealt with some comments about my skin tone, and issues of self-confidence because of internalized colorism in our Indian communities in America and back home. Social media campaigns have been started to fight against this notion of colorism, the most well known campaign being called “Unfair & Lovely,” It was started by South-Asian women to fight the under representation and unfair portrayal

of dark-skinned people in the media, and it was meant to be an inclusive movement. Their hashtag motivated hundreds of South-Asian women to share their pictures and stories about their own personal experiences with colorism.

So how can we alleviate the issue of colorism on a personal and worldwide level? It can only begin with each of us individually, by trying to change our deep-seated biases and prejudices

toward dark-skinned people. We must ask ourselves why we might prefer light skin over dark skin, and where that preference came from. Is it implicit, is it intrinsic, or is it simply the byproduct of these ideas being reinforced constantly for centuries and generations by people in power who wanted to benefit themselves? What are the historical implications associated with the ideas of colorism? Once we recognize these biases and understand the roots of where it comes from, only then can we work toward ways to help end colorism for good. Question yourself first before trying to change the views of others. When you hear or see it happening, question others on why they prefer light skin over dark skin and what it means for them to have that preference.

Whenever I hear people around me making colorist comments, I question them and try to make them aware of what they just said. On a worldwide level, we all can come together through campaigns and through awareness to make people recognize these biases and understand the inequalities that result because of colorism.

In our own country and around the world, we can see that colorism comes with many serious ramifications that affect people’s lives at a deep level that can forever change or ruin one’s life.

Colorism brings with it privilege for lighter-skinned people in all aspects of life in all parts of the world, and it is something that is not often considered. Many people may never have even heard of the word colorism, and may not be aware that it is an actual issue.

People may not be aware of the images and ideals they are being fed in the media, which can sometimes be something as inconspicuous as the particular tone of one’s skin. We all must become more aware of the interpersonal and global issue of colorism, and recognize it within ourselves and others and find ways to end it.

Tharps, Lori. “The Difference Between Racism and Colorism.” Time, Time, 6 Oct. 2016.

Nittle, Nadra Kareem. “The Origin of Colorism and How It Persists in America Today.” ThoughtCo, 23 Nov. 2016.

Harrison, Matthew S., and Kecia M. Thomas. “The Hidden Prejudice in Selection: A Research Investigation on Skin Color Bias.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 39, no. 1, 2009, pp. 134–168.

WL | 9

DEFAULTING ON DREAMS: ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND LOW-INCOME STUDENTS

by Matthew Donohue Illustrated by Elizabeth Grover

A university education is supposed to be the “great equalizer,” the trailhead of the path to lifelong success. Its long-term benefits, say many, far outweigh its often exorbitant costs— you can pay it all off with the money you earn as a result of your degree. For some students, being unable to afford a college education is no sweat; some may have won sufficient financial aid to mitigate most, or all, necessary costs, or may be covered by particularly wealthy parents.

But as the cost of attending college has risen by 56 percent over the last few years, the number of students fortunate enough to find themselves in

WL | 10

this circumstance has fallen sharply.1 The statistics are bleak for students who start out at an economic disadvantage. Only about nine percent of college students who come from the lowest economic backgrounds graduate with a bachelor’s degree by the age of 24; by contrast, that figure soars to 77 percent among students from the wealthiest economic backgrounds.2 Clearly, a collegiate education cannot be a very good “equalizer” if many students from low-income backgrounds are unable to even complete it. But what prevents poor students from finishing their degrees and finding jobs?

Being poor during college stifles the connections many students aim to make, connections that can prove crucial to securing meaningful and rewarding employment upon graduation. Instead of having the free time to reach out to like-minded classmates and organizations, many students are forced to work, simply to keep their heads above water financially, which still may not be enough.

About half of all working college students, for example, work in foodservice, an industry with no shortage of job openings. Many of those jobs, however, may only pay the minimum

wage, leaving students unable to build up any kind of meaningful savings, or even enough to pay existing bills.3 To cover these oppressive college bills, some students take out enormous loans, which continue to haunt them long after graduation. Around 40 percent of postsecondary students in the U.S. take on student loans, and at a rather significant cost: the median amount of student loan debt for a bachelor’s degree student was $25,000 in 2016.4 Other students decide to try their hand at full-time employment as a means of staying afloat. Unfortunately, this usually leads to higher dropout rates, as students find that trying to balance full-time employment and being a full-time student inevitably lead to one of the two being neglected. The specter of having to work at all, let alone full-time, during college is not a threat to many wealthy students.

Most can rely on their parents or their own funds to pay off their college debts. For poor students, though, paying for college is not a given, and employment or work-study programs are key.

Working during college used to be only a part-time endeavor, designed to serve as an extra income stream for those looking to maintain some rainy-day funds. Today, however, it’s the key to survival for many college students.

As of 2007, around 45 percent of undergraduate students worked through college, including 80 percent of part-time students. By 2010, one in 10 full-time undergraduate students were working 35 hours or more each week.5 Instead of having time to get real-world job experience, such as internships or volunteer opportunities that could provide important connections in industries relevant to their studies, or even to socialize with their classmates, students are forced to work minimum-wage jobs just to temporarily keep their heads above water, only to be saddled with more debt once their college years end.

To be fair, some colleges and universities have begun to listen to the plight of low-income students, and support groups—often studentrun—have sprung up at universities around the country. At Harvard University, for example, students formed the First Generation Student Union (FGSU), an advocacy or support group for students who are the first in their families to attend college, and who may come from challenging economic backgrounds. In one example of their important advocacy work, the FGSU worked successfully to ensure that two of the university’s dining halls would be open for

business during spring break. The group’s thenpresident, Ana Barros, argued that shuttering the dining halls during spring break would force students who remained on campus to “either go buy expensive food in Harvard Square or starve.”6 Groups similar to the FGSU have been formed at schools like the University of Chicago and Columbia University as well. These groups certainly offer much-needed assistance to students from low-income backgrounds or first-generation college students without the same assets as the children of college graduates.

However, not every school has such groups working on campus, which deprives students of access to important support mechanisms.

Outside of student-run groups on campus, universities themselves have been of decidedly little assistance to low-income students. Many schools are quick to tout the promise of loosely defined “financial aid” as an asset to students from all economic walks of life, based on merit and monetary need. Over the years, however, key scholarships have been evading the students who need them most and instead have been awarded to wealthier students.

Journalistic nonprofit ProPublica analyzed federal government data on postsecondary education and found that between 1996 and 2012, public four-year colleges and institutions began shrinking the number of grants and scholarships they awarded to the poorest students, instead channeling that money into merit scholarships that are usually awarded without any consideration of income or actual financial need. In 1996, public universities only awarded these need-blind merit scholarships to about eight percent of undergraduate students: by 2012, that number had risen to 18 percent of undergraduates. The increase was even steeper among private schools, from 24 percent of undergraduate students in 1996 to 44 percent by 2012.7 In effect, universities and colleges themselves are not even exerting effort to help their low-income students. Instead of offering crucial scholarship and grant money to those who need it the most, schools throw cash at economically privileged students, who often come from economically privileged educational systems, whether public or private. The reason for this priority treatment for rich students? A chance for universities to fill their own coffers.

Even when wealthy students are given sizable merit scholarships, more often than not, they still end up paying more to the school than a

poor student would ever be able to even imagine paying. All this, and that doesn’t even take into consideration the prospects of funding after graduation, like endowments and other gifts.

Simply put, schools, fiscally, cannot lose when they bring in more economically privileged students.8 With the odds against students from lowincome backgrounds, it’s no surprise that relatively few manage to graduate with their bachelor’s degrees. For those who do, it should be even more of a success to celebrate, right? After all, these students are on the same educational plane as their wealthier peers, able to compete for meaningful jobs and live a better life. Alas, this is not the case, for even after college, poor graduates find themselves at the bottom of the barrel once again.

While having a college degree does demonstrably offer people from low-income backgrounds a better shot at high earnings than their peers who hold only a high school diploma, GED, or less, low-income college graduates still earn less than their richer classmates. Soon after graduation, low-income graduates only earn about two-thirds as much as wealthier recent graduates; by mid-career, low-income folks are only earning half as much as wealthier folks with the exact same degree.9 Even after graduation, holding the exact same qualifications as their wealthier counterparts, people from lowincome backgrounds make less, on average, than the rich students with whom they graduated.

Thus, a vicious cycle of poverty begins to form; students emerge from college unable to pay off their debts, which leaves them even poorer than before, which leaves their children and dependents equally worse off.

From the first day of classes, to long after they cross the stage at commencement, college students from low-income backgrounds have the deck stacked against them. Between balancing employment opportunities, trying, often in vain, to receive important scholarships and grant money, and receiving less money even after earning their degrees, low-income students are at a seemingly eternal disadvantaged when compared to their peers from high-earning backgrounds. As more and more student groups come together to advocate for poor students seeking success, perhaps more colleges and universities will become accessible and welcoming places for these students. Until then, however, the gap will only continue to widen.

MarksJarvis, Gail. “Working during college doesn’t always pay, study says.” Chicago Tribune, 29 Oct. 2015. Accessed 11 Oct. 2017.

Sherman, Erik. “Wealthy Kids 8 Times More Likely To Graduate College Than Poor.” Forbes, 5 Feb. 2015. Accessed 14 Oct. 2017.

MarksJarvis, Gail. “Working during college doesn't always pay, study says.” Chicago Tribune, 29 Oct. 2015. Accessed 11 Oct. 2017.

4 Ciluffo, Anthony. “5 facts about U.S. student loans.” Fact Tank, Pew Research Center, 24 Aug. 2017. Accessed 10 Nov. 2017.

5 Perna, Laura W. “Understanding the Working College Student.” Academe, 24 Aug. 2017. Accessed 10 Nov. 2017.

6 Fox, Emily Jane. “Poor kids, rich schools.” CNN Money, 28 Apr. 2015. Accessed 16 Oct. 2017.

7 Shaughnessy, Lynn. “Colleges spend more on rich students, less on poor.” CBS News Moneywatch, 17 Sept. 2013. Accessed 21 Oct. 2017.

8 Shaughnessy, Lynn. “Colleges spend more on rich students, less on poor.” CBS News Moneywatch, 17 Sept. 2013. Accessed 21 Oct. 2017.

9 Hirshbein, Brad. “A college degree is worth less if you are raised poor.” The Brookings Institution, 19 Feb. 2016. Accessed 22 Oct. 2017.

1 2 3

WL | 11

THE PRIVILEGE OF EDUCATION

by Kelsey Hale Illustrated by Kelsey Hale

The purpose of education (for myself, anyway) is to create a community of people who are interested in bettering themselves, their community, and their future. As I wrote in a graduation address to my high school: “I wish for a life filled with love, meaningful work, self respect, adventure and urgency—for this alone is more relevant than any other endeavor.”

However, not everyone has an opportunity for a life full of these privileges because of the current education system.

The ideal American childhood has a child growing up in the suburbs with a typically married mother and father. This perfect picture continues with a good education, venturing off into college, and then having a good enough job to be able to pay off school. Contrary to

WL | 12

the perfect lifestyle America has shaped for its citizens, “51 percent of children in urban areas—8.9 million—living in low-income families—up from 48 percent in 2000.”1 Because only “53 percent of children in urban, lowincome families—4.7 million—have at least one parent who is employed full-time, year-round,” there is still a struggle to keep their children out of trouble and in school during their adolescent years.1 This later creates a barrier to higher education access. That being said, the great education and its opportunities are out there, but they are too often taken for granted.

So many people have had the privilege of education taken away from them by the process of redlining. I was blind to these issues until I took my first college course—which I paid

about $1,400 to take. Where I grew up, no one struggled with income for the most part, and we did not have issues of redlining, so when I moved to the city, I started to see what struggles people went through every day just to live a life I was living much easier on the outskirts.

In my first college course we talked a lot about privilege and education, so it really brought it to my attention that there was such an issue.

It is not so ironic that as soon as your start paying for your education, you start seeing and learning meaningful ideas and concepts, which prevents certain social classes and people who live in certain areas from having access to the “real world” problem solving skills that a white privileged young lady like myself can afford to learn. As a country, we cannot continue to

ignore the lack of education that children are receiving just because their parents don’t have money.

The value of education can be easily overlooked, especially when you go to school in a middle- to high-income suburb and are not educated about things that affect lowincome areas, like gentrification. Gentrification is defined as “the process of renovating and improving a house or district so that it conforms to middle-class taste.” This “improvement” jacks up prices, which forces lower income citizens into poorer areas of the city. As more and more citizens are kicked out of their homes, the quality of education goes right down with them. The reason this occurs is because the people living in these areas are moved to places where taxes are lower, therefore making funds for education lesser. This lack of funding is the sole issue that lies within the public education system.

With gentrification comes redlining.

Redlining is part of a view on a map of a city where you can clearly see that an area is mostly low income residents kept in one single vicinity.

Redlining and gentrification go hand-in-hand, ruining the chances for children from lowincome families to find success within their communities.

While the quote “surround yourself with people who will push you higher” is often given as advice to kids in school, it is quite the opposite of the reality in these communities. Not only are redlined neighborhoods unsupportive environments for working toward higher education, the schools within them do not do much better. These communities are specifically targeted for a lack of funding. It is not the community’s fault, but those who are in charge of deciding what money gets allocated where.

So, most of the taxes do not go to making sure students are well prepared for higher education, and they are automatically behind those who had the proper funding in school.

The school systems within these gentrified areas are most likely to have organizations like Teach for America (TFA). Defined on their website, TFA is “a nonprofit organization whose stated mission is to enlist, develop, and mobilize as many as possible of our nation’s most promising future leaders to grow and strengthen the movement for educational equity and excellence.” By definition, TFA sounds wonderful.

Unfortunately, this mission is not always the main goal of many of the workers for this program. Usually, TFA workers are fresh out of school and need some type of teaching experience. Whether they are looking to become 1

a principal or they are just in need of extra experience to get the job they want, they use TFA as a buffer program.

The problem with using TFA is that most of these people only work at their assigned problematic school for one to two years. The students at these schools are often in unstable homes, and they are now in a school system that is also unreliable and unstable. These students need some type of sustainable environment, but TFA often takes that from them. As soon as students get comfortable with their teacher, the teacher is gone and moving onto the next job, leaving the students with a new teacher who has new teaching styles, making it difficult to learn.

Instead, I would suggest Teach for America teachers should either have a minimum fouryear term, that way students who begin with the teacher will most likely have them within whatever school they are at for the duration of that school. (For example, if a freshman started with Ms. Anderson, she would stay until that freshman was a senior, thus creating a constant in the child’s life at least for school.)

On the contrary to places with TFA and other flakey teachers, towns with more affluent school systems have far more opportunities and functional areas in which students can afford to better themselves within school and socially.

The teachers stay more committed, building stronger bonds and a sense of community in the classroom, so students are less likely to feel failure because of this support.

Adequate funding is the reason athletics and other extra-curricular opportunities exist.

Without the proper funding, students lose opportunities to build the teamwork and social skills that are required in sports.

Sports have an impact physically and mentally to a student. Many lessons are taught, like don’t give up on yourself and practice makes perfect.

These are skills needed for self-motivation and success within the working world. Without these skills, children can grow up to not knowing how to handle constructive criticism. They can also lack motivation. Furthermore, sports can benefit physical health, which, of course, most people strive to stay in good health.

The arts usually also take a hit with loss of funding. Self expression and communication skills can be taken from kids just because of money being reallocated. Schools that have poor test scores (which tend to be these low income areas) often cut arts and athletics first to try and focus in on the core subjects.

Taking away a channel for self-expression and communication can take a toll on students.

Often, students can become depressed or

anxious if they have no means to express themselves. People can also develop addiction when they cannot deal with their emotions. One of the few way schools can teach students to properly and appropriately express themselves is through the arts.

If you think back to when you learned some of your greatest life lessons, chances are a few, if not the majority, were learned in school.

Whether it be you were taught how to share toys or pick up a fallen teammate, your school taught you about empathy and teamwork. If schools are lacking both academically and socially, they cannot possibly be producing the best students America has to offer.

I realize how lucky I was to be able to participate in athletics and art programs in high school, and I appreciate the school I was brought up in. I say “brought up in” because in schools that have extracurricular opportunites, there is room to be brought up by your community rather than just your family at home. This privilege is something I feel a lot of people, including myself, do not really think about often. It is always a drag to do homework and take exams, but after considering it, look at the flip side. To be stuck in a situation where you do not even have the option or access to these “inconveniences” sounds a bit too ridiculous to be true. The worst part about the matter is that this is a reality for a lot of people.

Looking even further, the fact that the main foundation of education is the most messed with part of the system is something to think about.

When it comes down to it, the state government is tampering with the most impressionable stages of people’s lives just because they feel the need to fund schools in better areas. Redlining is happening to those in low income areas that cannot do much for themselves to fix it. It is systematic oppression forced onto people who just want what is best for their child and their education. This foundation for a better education is compromised for students, making it difficult for them to be accepted to college.

Everyone should have the opportunity to get a higher education. At the very least, they should prepared enough to have the choice to go to school.

With empathy for these low income areas, a knowledge of how we can fix the issue of isolation of quality education, and a better allocation of funds, I believe compassion and empathy can rise from a quality of education no lower than the power of inquiry and creativity, the key concepts when considering the quality and access of education in the United States of America.

Koball, Heather, Ayana Douglas-Hall, and Michelle Chau. Children in Urban Areas are Increasingly Low Income. NCCP. 9 May 2017.

WL | 13

THE DISADVANTAGE OF BEING “UN-AMERICAN”

by Katharina Livar Illustrated by Mohammed Uddin

I remember going to the grocery store with my mother a lot as a child. I got so excited at the prospect of candy, chocolate, cookies, and sugary cereals that I got to choose for impatient same-day consumption. It was the best part of the week for me. I really did love going to the grocery store— from about the ages of five to 10; after that, I came to dread those Sunday trips. From the moment I sat in the car, anxiety would creep up behind me, taunt me, and stay with me throughout the entire duration of our shopping experience until my mother and I were safe and driving back home in our 1998 Volkswagen Passat.

Anxiety would finally leave me alone in those moments, but the traces of anger and embarrassment never faded.

I hated that my mother was not “American” enough. I tensed up every time she had to hold a conversation with a cashier, her Slovak accent and broken English becoming more pronounced the longer she spoke. I would often have to interject in those conversations, explaining to the associate exactly what my mother was trying to say so that we could get out of there faster, avoiding the judgmental stares of innocent onlookers who probably had nothing better to do in those moments.

While I loved her, there was always a sense of shame that accompanied my relationship with her. In certain social situations, a younger version of me tried to correct her “un-American” behaviors with hushed phrases like “you really shouldn’t do that” and “please stop, people are looking at you” in the language that she grew up

WL | 14

with. Only as I got older did I realize the painful hypocrisy of those moments.

All that anger and shame of my mother being different from the “rest of America” stemmed from a deeply-rooted fear that somehow, people

would look at me differently because of her; that somehow, my American-born privileges would be taken away from me.

Out of the 323.1 million people who live in the United States of America, those who are U.S. citizens at birth automatically receive privileges that foreign-born immigrants may not obtain in their lives. Being born in this country means that a person automatically “earns” the right to vote once he or she turns 18, while foreignborn residents must undergo testing to prove their knowledge and loyalty to the country before they have a say in any sort of elections, regardless of how long they have lived here.1 In the case of my parents, it has been over 35 years, and they still cannot cast their ballots.

If one Googles a practice naturalization test, most of the results are multiple choice

civics examinations that have only four possible choices and give explanations and brief history lessons as to why certain answers are wrong or right. While this is a useful tool to help prepare immigrants for the real thing, it is not what the actual test is like.

The actual test is much more d e m a n d i n g , consisting of a speaking test, reading test, writing test, and civics test. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), there are a total of 100 different civics questions that foreign-born people seeking citizenship must study for, and yet, they will only be asked 10 in total.

In a 2012 study of 1,000 votingage Americans, as reported by U.S. News and World Report, 35 percent answered five or less questions correctly. In order for immigrants to become American citizens, they must correctly answer six out of 10. So, while about one in three American-born citizens cannot pass the naturalization test, most foreign-born applicants can: 97 percent to be exact.

While my relationship with my mother in no way affected my legal right—or should I say privilege—to vote, it still made me feel like I needed to over-compensate in terms of fitting in to what is considered “normal.” The United States has had a long-standing history of being an extremely prejudiced, racist, and exclusive country. For most of that history, it was rich, white men who held all power and responsibilities, calling the shots for everyone else around them. While that seems to be evolving for the better in recent years, it still

does not change the fact that simply being different from societal norms changes the way people treat you. It is a little strange, however, that these American norms exist and constantly exclude immigrants, especially considering that in 2013, about 41 million out of the 323.1 million people living in the United States were foreign-born people.2 Watching the way people sometimes treated my parents, as if they were stupid or uneducated based on their accents alone, put my survival skills into overdrive. Being able to speak “proper” English seems to improve a person’s quality of life in the U.S. quite dramatically, regardless of their intellectual abilities.

One of my roommate’s parents are both Chinese immigrants who currently work in research jobs that are below the level of their actual abilities. During one of our late-night bonding sessions, complete with ice cream and cookies, she explained to me how her father came to the United States on a student visa, working illegally in a restaurant business to pay for his own education. She told me stories about how hard he had to work for everything that he wanted and about the difficulties that still accompany him years after he had already finished his degree programs and got a respectable job. One of those difficulties is the mere fact that his ability to speak English is not up to standard for most of the companies he applied to work at. Because of this, jobs that he was highly qualified for slipped through his fingers and were given to people that had the “right” kind of communication skills. My roommate also acknowledged the childhood embarrassment that came with trips to the grocery store. So did my other roommate, whose Vietnamese parents required her to translate for them in most social situations and did not fully understand what she was being taught in school because of the drastic cultural differences.

The older generation of immigrants who came to the United States—like my parents, my roommates’ parents, and so many others—had a drastically different experience than those of the present. Since this country’s independence from Great Britain, numerous and varying immigration laws have been put into place, many of which have been detrimental to the livelihoods of immigrants. A 1790 law was the first ever put into place, dictating who could become a citizen. Of course, the privilege of citizenship was only given to free whites of “good moral character” that had lived within the United States for a minimum of two years. This excluded literally every other race in a country

that would eventually become the melting pot of the world. It was not even until 1870 where the right to this citizenship was extended to those of African origin. To be white was an advantage—a privilege—from the start.

In 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act was enacted, formally removing race and ethnicity as a criterion for eligibility for possible citizenship. This set into place a minimum quota for the number of visas a country grants to its people—but it was all based on ancestry instead of nationality. Also, while race was no longer considered a criterion for deportation, certain factors like ideologies, political activities, and mental health definitely contributed to it, paving the way for a preference of skilled laborers.

The following year, the Refugee Relief Act allowed non-quota visas for more than 20,000 immigrants and allowed them the opportunity to become permanent residents. It was not until 1965, however, that the United States opened its borders almost equally to Europeans and nonEuropeans.3 According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2013, older, first-generation immigrants who came to the U.S. during these times of muddy immigration laws fare worse than their children. First-generation immigrants averaged to make $45,800 annually—far less than the national average—while their secondgeneration children made an average of $58,100, only $100 less than the entire United States average. According to the study, secondgeneration immigrants also fare better in the type of jobs they acquire in comparison to their parents. Instead of working in temporary services, they often find office jobs or other white-collar jobs. These luxuries can often be accredited to the amount of time, energy, and perseverance first-generation immigrants put into their lives to make sure their children were better off.

According to these conclusions, it makes sense why many of today’s international students seem to be much wealthier than their older generations; but their livelihoods in this country are still restricted by a large set of legal guidelines. Most American-born college students have jobs throughout their college careers, and those jobs can be on-campus, offcampus, paid internships, or anything else.

International students, however, are subjected to harsh regulations on how they can earn money.

Students who are here on student visas are not permitted to hold off-campus jobs during their first year of college, and are only permitted to engage in three types of off-campus employment

for the next three years: Curricular Practical Training (CPT), Optional Practical Training (OPT), or STEM Optional Practical Training Extension.4 With these three forms of employment come even more conditions. Regardless of the type of off-campus employment, it must directly correlate with a student’s area of study.

For example: an international student studying economics would not be permitted to work in retail. Furthermore, whether or not a student is even eligible for off-campus employment in his or her last three years depends entirely on the type of visa they hold. The F and M classes of visas are for nonimmigrant people who wish to study in the United States. Those who hold an F-1 visa are considered Academic Students, while those holding an M-1 visa are considered Vocational Students. Only F-1 holders are allowed off-campus jobs in their last three years of schooling; M-1 holders must wait until they finish with their studies completely.

This gives international students a clear disadvantage when it comes to residing in this country for four or more years. While most college students hate the fact that at one point or another they will probably have to hold a job while in school, international students are not given the privilege of choosing how they make money. The same can be said for immigrants who are not primarily in the country for their education. In a CNN report, a survey found that most minimum wage jobs were most likely to be filled by immigrants. Some of these jobs include manicurists (63 percent filled by immigrants), maids and housekeepers (50 percent), and many other minimum-wage jobs that plenty of people do not want to spend their entire lives working.

My mother is one of the people that does, working two minimum wage jobs to support her family.

It is time for me to simply acknowledge the privileges I carried in comparison to the ones my mother lacked, but also that the only reason I was afforded such privilege was because of her.

Statistically speaking, I have a shot to play the disgusting, socially-constructed, dichotomous game of “us” vs. “them”—American vs.

Non-American—and to come out on top.

Hopefully one day the game will stop running altogether. Hopefully one day we will realize that despite where we come from, and despite our physical differences, we all deserve the same opportunities to succeed in life. Hopefully one day my privileges will become my mother’s rights.

Bureau, US Census. “Foreign Born.” About this Topic “Chapter 5: U.S. Foreign-Born Population Trends.” Pew Research Center’s Hispanic Trends Project, 27 Sept. 2015 “How U.S. immigration laws and rules have changed through history.” Pew Research Center, 30 September 2015 4 “Students and Employment.” USCIS 1 2 3

WL | 15

HEADS OR TAILS, YOU’RE STILL A DIME: WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AMERICAN

by Sidra Afzal Illustrated by Sidra Afzal

The concept of identity is vague, versatile, and abstract. Who you are is because of who you are not. Who you are not is because of who you are.

There are two sides to a coin—two sides to you—but both are sides of the same coin, and similarly both are sides that are you. Heads or tails: it is still a dime. Since it’s heads, it is not tails, but we forget that in the end, it is still, holistically, a dime. This concept is mirrored in the way we perceive people and objects: something IS because of what it is not, and in

WL | 16

this, the duality of labels becomes apparent. It divides between the positive and the negative, the acquisition of certain characteristics and the lack thereof. The point to be noted is that this divides what we think something is and what it really is. For example, when living in America, you soon learn what it means to be a real American and a fake American. You learn who is classified as a true American and why.

What we think of something is not always what it truly is. Anais Nin very eloquently states: “We don’t see things as they are; we see

them as we are.” Our perception of the world is through our eyes, our reality. However, even though reality is subjective, perceived reality is not actual reality. Our biases, our assumptions, and preconceived notions cloud our judgement when trying to impartially discern a concept or person. We have been conditioned to think of a stereotypical image when the word American is said to us, and we think that image to be real.

That image of a real American has a whitecollar job and loves burgers and fries. The real American loves football and watches it

religiously with highly superstitious beliefs. He begins his day with bacon and eggs and ends it at the table with his wonderful family, his boy and his girl in a beautiful home surrounded by a white picket fence. The real American paints his face red, white, and blue on July 4 and screams “USA! USA! USA!” He goes to dinner parties on his yacht off the coast from his beach summer home and sips champagne elegantly. He wears pastel polos, shorts, and boat shoes. He listens to country music and rides his horse on the weekends. He cares about no one’s culture other than his own and owns at least two guns. The real American cooks out on Labor Day and makes a huge turkey on Thanksgiving. But most of all, the real American is white and has blue eyes.

These are the images propelled by the media.

They reveal the media’s systematic agenda to control the masses and polarize their perceived reality. This control is achieved by conditioning the public to accept a specific cognition and attitude, which in our case, is that the real American is white and elite and to be a real American, your mannerisms must match his.

The negative repercussions of conditioning are as follows. We, the immigrant masses, begin to view ourselves through the “real American’s” reality.

And if we’re not like him, if we’re not living the American dream, then we cannot be classified as real Americans. However, the main point that should be noted is that it is a dream. The real American is a social construct and a figment of imagination that society has conditioned us to believe. And just like that, the white man is no more real than any other American.

When America was created on the backs of men and women of color, where were the founders? Living space and farmland were made by slaughtering black men, women, and children. When the plantations were sowed by black men and women’s sweat, blood, and tears, when they were working tirelessly to plow the fields, the white man enjoyed liberty in the comfort of his home. The black man’s strength and determination helped raise this country. The brown man’s toil on the streets and labor brought the economy to where it is now. America was founded, created, and built by people of color and we are hell bent in trying to white wash it,

not realizing that America was made in color, that we are way past the gray scale. People of color do not fit in the three shades of white. But nevertheless, we unapologetically belong; we will take back the land, the rights, and the privilege that was stripped from us, for this is our home, too. We might not look like real Americans. We may not be white, but we are true Americans.

And that is our reality.

Opinions are not facts. Just because we think a dime is a penny, doesn’t make it a penny. It just doesn’t make sense. These warped biases don’t make it true that people of color are not people who want education, the warmth of family, and friends at their side. Biased views do not make people criminals. Being a Muslim does not mean being a terrorist; I don’t have a bomb and I swear I’m not planning to kill you. Being covered does not mean being oppressed, but rather liberated, for I choose to cover and not to flaunt. Being Mexican does not mean being a landscaper or

different identity does in no way, shape, or form remove the label of “American” from anyone.

Just because someone is a different type of American doesn’t mean you can’t be American, too. The overarching concept of being American is meant to unite and connect everyone, but we have found categories and subdivisions for each type of American to fit people in different boxes.

The Pakistani Americans are different than the African Americans or Asian Americans, overlooking the fact that, fundamentally, we are all American.

I am Muslim. But I am also American. I am not white, but I am American. I am educated, I speak English, and I love fries, and even if I didn’t, even if I wasn’t all of these things, I am still entitled to be called American because this is my country. I may not look a real American— in fact, I may look like a “fake” American, for I do not dress the same way as everyone else and my skin does not match those who are white.

But still I am American, a true American.

I wear a hijab, but I hate violence. I love Burger King, and I believe in one God. I love The Office, and I don’t own guns. We pingpong between expectations and reality, hoping the more we collide, the more these American standards and Muslim stereotypes will come crashing down.

I may look nothing like an American, but I am. My country is a melting pot of diversity, yet the media tries to filter that out.

If we were made in color, why then is our ideal white? Why does the white male come to mind when we hear the word American? Why have we let thoughts become facts when the numbers don’t match?

There is no real American, there is no fake American—there is only all of us: the natives, the immigrants, the people of color. There are two sides to each coin, but sometimes when you flip a coin, it sits on creviced edges, teasing you, leaving you questioning: heads or tails? Still a dime, not defined by where it falls. I am that dime. Not fully American, not fully Pakistani; I twirl on my creviced edges.

Other’s divisions and subdivisions cannot and will not continue to divide us. Our reality will not be defined using others’ perceptions.

You can be part of the red, white, and blue, even if your skin is a different hue.

There are two sides to each coin, but sometimes when you flip a coin, it sits on creviced edges, teasing you, leaving you questioning: heads or tails? Still a dime, not defined by where it falls. I am that dime. Not fully American, not fully Pakistani; I twirl on my creviced edges. a field worker.

Every stereotype perpetuated for so called “fake Americans” is invalid, incorrect, and wrong. For every person who stands up and says the Pledge of Allegiance is entitled to be called American, whether or not he likes football, fries, and burgers, whether or not he is white, and whether or not he fits the image of a real American. For far too long we have perpetuated certain realities unconsciously, not knowing the poison and toxic we so effortlessly spread. And now, it is time to stop.

One becomes a true American if he lives in America and believes in American ideals. He does not have to be white to be classified as American, he must only believe in the ideals: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. And it is this belief that makes him a true American.

Speaking a different language, having a different skin color, or associating oneself with a

WL | 17

ONCE AGAIN

by Jessica Perez Illustrated by Fatima Amin

In a country founded by immigrants—a country known for liberty, freedom, and opportunity—why is it that we have an ongoing issue when it comes to who we allow into the country?

One of the many subjects that U.S. administrations are adamant on addressing, whether in a positive manner or negative manner, is immigration: Specifically, illegal immigration. There is a stigma surrounding “illegal” immigrants, out-casting them as malicious people who want to harm the foundations that hard-working Americans fought for.1 They can be seen as a lawless group of people reaping from the American economy, taking over American jobs, stealing American resources, and exploiting the generosity of

WL | 18

America’s power.

With such a malicious stereotype of “illegal” immigrants, many citizens don’t want to fight for their rights. However, those who do, see the complete opposite. Those willing to fight for the “illegal” immigrant don’t see illegality, but see a person who has come to America to work hard to earn a safe and better life for themselves and their family. These immigrants take the jobs that no one would want and they try to keep a low profile when it comes to trouble. The idea of the American dream, promising success and freedom, is often something that attracts immigrants to this country in the first place.

It is no secret that 2017 has been a politically challenging year. Politics and policies are always a game of high risk, and this year’s Trump

administration has a strong stance when it comes to public affairs, especially on the topic of immigration. The administration’s change toward the immigration policy of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) has caused quite the uproar. DACA is a program that was formed by executive order of former president Barack Obama in 2012. This program recognizes children that have come to the United States illegally as minors and protects them from immediate deportation. When these individuals apply for DACA, they are requesting a deferred action for a two-year period during which they are permitted to stay in the country; this deferred action is also subject to renewal.

In order to apply for the program, the only requirements listed by the U.S. Citizen and

Immigration Services are that the applicant:1 1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012 2. Came to the United States before reaching their sixteenth birthday 3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time 4. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making their request for consideration of deferred action with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 5. Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012, meaning they never had a lawful immigration status on or before June 15, 2012 or had any lawful immigration status or parole obtained prior to June 15, 2012 expired as of June 15, 2012 6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school have obtained a General Educational Development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States, and 7. Have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more misdemeanors, and not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

For the 800,000 illegal immigrants affected

by DACA2—people who had been struggling on the verge of deportation—the Obama administration’s program created a means of relief. With the option of applying for the deferral period, “illegal” immigrants had finally gained a sense of safety and community through DACA. DACA paved the way for discussion of immigration on a new level.

Having seen firsthand what many immigrant families coming to America must endure, I can say with confidence that it’s no easy task trying to assimilate into a culture that is entirely different from the one you just left. You have to start from scratch and build a new life for your family; it’s difficult to adapt and adopt a new cultural lens.

More often than not, you have to learn a new language, how to develop connections to the outside world, and how to achieve the “American Dream, which is perceived by many as the most valuable. It is already difficult for “legal” immigrants—imagine coming to this country at a young age and having to assimilate the same way they do, but in addition always fearing that someone will discover you are here unlawfully.

That unlawful status haunts your every move

because you risk being deported. Now imagine if the only hope of safety you had was the DACA program. What would happen if that small hope was going to be erased? What privileges that had once provided a bit of security would be stripped away?

This year, the Trump administration has caused quite a political stir, especially after the September 5 announcement of their intention to phase out the DACA program. With such a major turn of events, deportation has been a large fear for immigrants. At the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated that DACA was an ill-crafted program that lacked majority consent.3 “This policy was implemented unilaterally to great controversy and legal concern after Congress rejected legislative proposals…the executive branch, through DACA, deliberately sought to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions. Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch.”

The Trump administration is arguing that DACA, despite being known to aid over thousands of undocumented immigrants, is a program that no one wants. If the Trump administration is arguing that the very basis of the program is the byproduct of an unconstitutional exercise by the former presidential administration, then who is to fight for the immigrants who were brought here illegally without the knowledge of what was actually happening to them and going to happen to them in the future? If Obama hadn’t established this program, then what would happen to the thousands of immigrants suddenly being deported without sufficient time for preparations?

When news spread that the program was to be repealed, I knew that for many this would be the start of a panic. For recent University of Massachusetts Boston graduate Renata Teodoro, a recipient of the DACA program, this recent repeal served as another disappointing moment in American history. Having talked with Ms. Teodoro, she knew that all the gains and privileges that had been slowly building up for these immigrants were suddenly being taken away. “With DACA, it did give me some certain privileges that I got used to a bit,” said Teodoro.

“Being able to work legally is a privilege but I don’t think people who are actually legal here think it’s a privilege. To me it makes such a significant difference as to the type of work authorization I can have, and to have a little

bit of peace of mind that I probably won’t get detained and deported means a lot.” With a new administration in office this year, the whole concept of privilege has been reexamined.

When I think about DACA, I think about the opportunities people are given. Many of the people in the program were brought here as children without knowing what they were signing up for. They grew up in America, did their best to succeed according to the American standards of success, and worked just as hard as anyone else. The only difference between someone in the DACA program and an American citizen is a status that details if you are legal or not. With the recent declaration that the program is to end, many undocumented immigrants are worried because America is all they know. With mass deportations, these immigrants are being forced back to countries that may be dangerous, lacking in resources, and/or not equipped with the tools needed for success. Although it may not appear to be defined as a typical example of privilege, the fact that people who have tried to obtain DACA are now faced with an ultimatum of two years (or less) shows how privilege has been stripped.

Not every undocumented immigrant has the qualifications to participate in DACA, so for the 800,000 immigrants2 that currently do qualify, the privilege of getting a job legally isn’t a valid option again. After the next two years (two years only applying to those who signed up for the program prior to the repeal), there won’t be a solid legal action that can be taken to stay in the U.S. In two years, its deportation.

We neglect to acknowledge that privilege, in this case, can simply mean not being affected by—and therefore not having to be concerned with—the recent immigration changes. For some people, the fact that they can choose to learn about DACA or ignore the issue of the recent repeal is itself a privilege that not everyone has.

If I was undocumented in this country, ignoring the risk of deportation would not be a valid option. I would be forced to stay updated on the only program that could potentially defer my deportation. For the immigrants who are “legal” in the states, they do not have to pay attention to the issue since it does not directly affect them.

Privilege in America has come to mean many different things, and for those ignorant of the current immigration issue, it is something that they have. For the immigrants currently in the DACA program, September 5 was the day that any sense of privilege they had was eliminated.

Privilege was once again taken away from the immigrant.

DeLutio, Paul. “Stigma attached to immigrants is not justified.” The Daily Illini, 10 Aug. 2016.

“Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).” USCIS. López, Gustavo, and Jens Manuel Krogstad. “Key facts about unauthorized immigrants enrolled in DACA.” Pew Research Center, 25 Sept. 2017.

4 “Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks on DACA.” The United States Department of Justice, 5 Sept. 2017.

1 2 3

WL | 19

IMAGINE COMMUNISM IN THE UNITED STATES

by Jade Chu Illustrated by Jess DoSouto

Can you name the five remaining communist countries in the world?

Communism is a political ideology that includes the belief that societies can attain total social equality by eliminating private property.1 Communism began in the 1840s, created by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The concept eventually spread around the world, and today, countries such as China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba still adapt it.

I consider myself lucky to be born and raised in a communist country. Now, people

WL | 20

might be thinking that I am brainwashed to say those words because communism is known to be a detrimental and suppressive term. I am calling myself lucky not because of the belief that communism is good, but instead because of the experiences that I’ve gained living in such a restrictive society. I did not know how privileged I was until I came to the United States when I was 15 years old. Privilege is commonly invisible to those who have it, and my friends in the U.S. are often unaware of how privileged they are.

Even though I consider myself lucky to

be born in a communist country, I do not feel privileged because of that. Privilege is defined as “unearned access to resources (social power) that are only readily available to some people because of their social group membership; an advantage or immunity granted to or enjoyed by one societal group above and beyond the common advantage of all other groups.”2 I was not privileged because I did not live in a society that was socially and economically better than others.

Growing up in Saigon, Vietnam, I was the

head-girl consistently throughout my academic years. I was proud and worked hard to be a headgirl. I was proud not because I felt that I had more powers and control than other students (the only advantages I had were to line everyone up in straight lines and write people’s names on the board), but because I could quickly recite “Năm Điều Bác Hồ Dạy” (Five Things Uncle Ho Taught) and nail the high notes of “Ai yêu bác Hồ Chí Minh hơn thiếu niên nhi đồng” (Who Loves Uncle Ho Chi Minh More Than Students) as well as Đêm Qua Em Mơ Gặp Bác Hồ” (I dreamed of Uncle Ho).

Every Monday of the academic year, I was the first student to arrive to class in my Áo Dài (Traditional Vietnamese dress) to get ready for Uncle Ho’s morning ceremony. In the tradition, the whole school had to line up outside the schoolyard to sing the national anthem and recite uncle Ho’s teachings as if his sayings were a bible. The entire institution dressed in white, red, and yellow colors— the colors that mimicked propaganda billboards around the city. I could vividly remember Uncle Ho’s oversized poster in the middle of the stage, hung up neatly next to the Vietnamese flag. Standing underneath the poster were the headmaster and drummers in communist-colored uniforms.

The drumming was always my favorite part—the melody gave me a sense of power and dominance that only communist music could give to a person.

Perhaps the most different aspect of living in a communist country is the education system.

Starting from third grade, Vietnamese students are expected to memorize and recite word-forword Vietnamese literature and political acts (putting this into perspective, the formality and length of Abraham Lincoln’s “The Gettysburg Address” are well below par).

In literature class, the student that echoed sample essays would get a 10 out of 10, and the student that tried new styles of writing would be criticized.

In theories class, teachers expected no one to question the philosophies taught in class. When asked to answer a question, the pupil would stand up from one’s seat, answer the question, and would only be seated when told to do so.

There were no pathways for creativity, and the only validation and goal a student had was to be precisely what the teachers and textbooks said.

In his article entitled “How China Kills

Creativity,” Jiang Xueqin discusses the education system in China that is exceedingly similar to Vietnam. He says that “the most harmful thing that a school does, from a creativity perspective, is the way in which it separates emotion from memory by making learning an unemotional experience.” Here, communist countries such as China and Vietnam produce nations of Shereshevskiis: pupils with photographic memories and inabilities to be creative.

Imagine communism in the United States.

What if every Monday, students had to wear American flag colored clothes and sing a song about Donald Trump? What if literature classes were all about reciting, and no one was allowed to question anything? Can you imagine an individualistic society transforming into a collectivist culture overnight? Your uniqueness is no longer embraced. Instead, it is denounced by society. If the U.S. became a communist country, would you then feel privileged to live

I would rarely speak up in class because I didn’t want to be wrong. In the education system in Vietnam, when a head-girl or head-boy says something wrong, it is embarrassing and almost humiliating.

I grew into a better version of myself without noticing. It wasn’t until I encountered my old Vietnamese essays in the basement of my house that I became speechless. The perfect scores on my Vietnamese schoolwork weren’t a result of thinking outside of the box or challenging myself: it was merely the sleepless nights that helped me remember all of the quotes and styles of sample essays. Sitting on the cold floor of the basement, I could jog my brain to recite some of the quotes that I thought I would have forgotten. I was horrified. I could remember what the quote was, but I couldn’t remember what it was about. My memory is used to the repetition of some words, but it cannot explain the actual meaning of them. This realization made an impact on me. It made me feel privileged because I am now living in a society where creativity is celebrated.

In her book titled The Faraway Nearby, Rebecca Solnit discusses the following: Many of the great humanitarian and environmental campaigns of our time have been to make the unknown real, the invisible visible, to bring the faraway near, so that the suffering of sweatshop workers, torture victims, beaten children, even the destruction of other species and remote places, impinges on the imagination and perhaps prompts you to act.

To realize one’s privilege is to be closer to sympathy. We live in an ever-changing world where privilege is taken for granted. Like many other immigrants, when I came to the United States, I had to learn a new language, a new culture, and a new way of life. If I did not understand that being here was a privilege, I would not be able to persist my hardships. In putting myself small on the stage of another’s life, I see the vast expanse of the world that is not about me. I tell my American friends my Vietnam stories in hope that they understand the advantage of living in the United States.

Perhaps, knowing that we are privileged makes it easier for us to reach out to others that are not.

Imagination is solitude in which we meet.

Imagine communism in the United States.

What if every Monday, students had to wear American flag colored clothes and sing a song about Donald Trump? What if literature classes were all about reciting, and no one was allowed to question anything?

1 2

the way we do right now?

My first few months in the U.S. were difficult.

The American school system was completely different from the education system at home.

It wasn’t fear that made the months hard—it was a lack of fear. Like any other American institutions, non-technical classes such as English, history, psychology, classics, political science, or any classes that don’t require frequent use of mathematics, stress the importance of identifying big ideas. In these courses, students are encouraged to think beyond their comfort zone. It might sound strange, but I felt nervous in non-technical classes, simply because I had freedom. It was difficult for me to sit in these courses because I didn’t feel fear. I was free from the fear of misquoting a text, free from my professor’s public critiques in class, and free from the pressure that I must get a 10 out of 10 because of the head-girl title. Being creative was hard because I would always find myself resorting to the textbook or Google’s example.

Rosenberg, Tarkan. How China Kills Creativity. The Diplomat. July 02 2011. Accessed November 30 2017.

What is privilege? National Conference for Community and Justice. Accessed November 30 2017.

WL | 21

3.94 MILES AWAY

by Colleen Shea Illustrated by Laura Saucier My winters in high school were spent on a basketball court. Six days a week, two hours a day minimum, feeling physically exhausted by the time I arrived to my West Roxbury home for the night only to have to call upon my mental stamina to get a start on the homework that was due for the next day.

The West Roxbury girls all had a carpool— our parents switching off picking us up from school certain days of the week. Some of the biggest laughs I’ve had happened among teammates in those cars with the heat blasting to warm us up after climbing over snowbanks to get to where the parent was parked as quickly as possible. On really good days, I’d be dropped off at home, see Christmas lights glowing beneath melting snow, and walk up shoveled stairs to open the door to the smell of chicken pot pie (my favorite). There’s nothing as satisfying as eating until you can’t eat anymore after a tough workout. During basketball season I was always tired, always having fun, occasionally stressed out when trying to manage my time between school and sports—but I was always safe.

3.94 miles away from my West Roxbury home, that wasn’t the case for Dorchester teenager, Jonathan Dos Santos. In 2015, Jonathan was shot and killed by two younger teenagers as he rode his bicycle down a Dorchester street to visit his aunt and uncle. His eight-year-old cousin saw the tragedy happen as he waited for Jonathan’s arrival, hauntingly describing: “I saw Jonathan riding his bike and he was smiling and then he fell. Smiling then falling.”1 Jonathan had just recently been making great strides in school and he was beloved by his classmates, teachers, friends, teammates, and of course, his family. People said Jonathan was energetic and bubbly. He was a basketball player, with dreams of maybe playing college ball one day, but was facing pressure from gang members at his school and in his neighborhood. He had confided in his coach, telling him that he was scared to walk home from practice because some of his peers didn’t like that he was involved in sports and not with local gangs. He often got rides home from his supportive coach to keep him safe.

Nevertheless, he was shot on his bicycle and heartbreakingly died in his uncle’s arms.1 That is Jonathan Dos Santos’ story, and that is not the story he deserved. That is not the story that Jonathan’s family and friends should have

WL | 22

to carry in their hearts and minds for the rest of their lives.

Seeing this story on the news had me shaken.

I was a teenager who had lived in Boston her whole life, just as Jonathan. I was a teenager who had a love for basketball and had goals of playing college basketball, just as Jonathan. The biggest stressor I had during my basketball season was homework and assignment deadlines. Jonathan was worrying about his safety—his life—during his basketball season. We were so similar, but living in such different worlds that are only 3.94 miles away. He had unfair worries in life at such a young age that I’m privileged enough to never have. I sat on my couch staring at the television, surprised by how quickly I was suddenly feeling my eyes well up with tears for a boy who I didn’t know, for a crying aunt whose pain somehow transferred right into my own living room a few towns away.

My Boston neighborhood is much different than Jonathan’s neighborhood. The city of Boston has 23 neighborhoods, but of these neighborhoods gang activity and youth violence is relatively restricted to the neighborhoods Roxbury, Dorchester, Mattapan, Hyde Park, the South End, and Jamaica Plain.2 My neighborhood, West Roxbury, is noticeably missing from this list.

West Roxbury is a predominantly white neighborhood and has a median household income of $98,350 annually (nearly $30,000 more than the median of all of Massachusetts).

About 75 percent of its citizens have pursued education past a high school degree, and 5.1 percent of its population is below the poverty line.3 On the other hand, Jonathan’s neighborhood Dorchester is quite different. Dorchester has a predominantly African American population, although it is still quite diverse with other minority groups. The median household income is $57,948 annually, only half of its citizens have pursued education past a high school degree, and 38.7 percent of the population has less than a high school degree. Almost 20 percent of its population is below the poverty line.4 West Roxbury and Dorchester are both neighborhoods within the same city, yet they are drastically different places. Dorchester is a disadvantaged neighborhood, only 3.94 miles away from my relatively affluent West Roxbury.

It is in Boston neighborhoods like Dorchester that youth and gang violence is at its most dangerous. It is important to note that Jonathan was not a gang member. He was ambushed for that very reason, doing his best to make the choice that his parents, teachers, and community leaders wanted him to make, which was staying away from crime.5 The reality is Jonathan was living in a dangerous area, trying to stay out of trouble, had a love for sports and stuck with basketball instead, yet was still shot and killed by gang members. The public perception of gangs has people thinking the majority of gang members are young locals who joined because they have a thirst for violence. These children don’t join a gang with aspirations of murder and crime and terrorizing their neighborhood.

Many of Boston’s youth join gangs as a means of self protection. These youth live in dangerous neighborhoods where crime rates are high. For many of these kids, leaving the house at night safely seems impossible—unless they are a member of a gang that can offer them protection.

Being a part of a gang means your house is safe, your family is safe, and you are safe.

For many, this level of safety is one that goes unappreciated.2 I know I have never felt slightly in danger in West Roxbury. I’ve never been nervous going for walks at night. I’ve never been pressured to join a gang. I don’t even know anybody in a gang. I’ve never felt any pressure from my peers not to stop my extracurricular interests.

The idea that pursuing extracurricular interests could put somebody’s life in danger is a tragedy that I can not wrap my mind around.

This tragedy isn’t happening on the other side of the world, perhaps in a third world country that I could donate money to—this is happening here. This is happening in my city. Not even on the other side of the city! This is happening 3.94 miles away from where I live. It’s within walking distance. It’s a privileged life not having to even consider joining a gang for protection—and it is privileged ignorance to be unable to see that many gang members are just scared kids joining to feel a bit safer in their neighborhoods.

This is violence and tragedy that needs to be stopped. But how? Jonathan’s coach, Paris Cherry, said, “The sad reality is every moment that a kid is on the street is an opportunity for

something bad to happen so we don’t wanna be reactionary. We want to be proactive and make sure we keep the kids we’re working safe as much as possible.”6 After his player’s passing, Cherry applied for an emergency grant to pay for a team van in order to drive every one of his players home after games and practices to keep them safe. Additionally, Cherry has extended his basketball camp hours in order to provide a safe space to teens for a longer period of time.

Cherry is one man making a difference in his community for the teens whose safety he cares about. What these kids need are safe spaces. They need community centers; they need community programming; they need safe transportation.

However, many just need individuals who see them as just that: individuals. These teens affected by youth violence have parents who love them, siblings who look up to them, hobbies and dreams they want to pursue. 79-year-old Father Richard Conway is a priest in Dorchester who strives to make connections with these young Boston teens, hoping to make a difference in their lives.

Father Conway explains, “You look at the gospels, and what was Jesus doing? He was out there talking to people. You can’t do it behind the desk, you can’t do it in the office. I think you have to be out where the people are.” Father Conway walks around (and as he does so many stop to greet him with a smile and receive a blessing) hoping to make connections with young men in particular.

He lets them know that there are alternatives to joining gangs and violence, and that the Church is there to help them seek out these alternatives. He is always armed with pamphlets about after school activities, job openings, and other resources to hopefully keep them safe and out of trouble.7 There is no doubt that a lot of the preventive measures needed to battle youth violence comes down to a matter of funds, but individuals can make a difference. All change starts with individuals. Coach Paris Cherry and Father Richard Conway are similar in that they care about the teens that live their lives in danger because of where they grow up, and it’s because

they care that they’re able to make a difference.

Additionally, much of this violence is gun violence. Often, these are minors with guns. It is illegal to sell guns to minors. There are black markets dedicated to the sale of illegal arms, specifically to minors who are otherwise unable to purchase their own. When seeing that youth gun offenders are 80 percent made up of African Americans and 95 percent are male, you realize that gun violence has systemically become a minority problem most likely isolated within disadvantaged neighborhoods, like Dorchester.8 These are minors getting guns by way of illegal markets, and it is these illegal purchases that is giving gang members a means to be violent.

Law enforcement should allocate many of their resources toward investigating this illegal trade in order to be as preventative as possible. Young people should not be able to get their hands on

and that there is no ongoing threat to the area.”

It’s an isolated incident and there is no ongoing threat to the area. Will I learn more about this?

Will people care? Is this more gang violence that doesn’t affect the more privileged citizens of Boston and therefore warrants less concern?

As students, we are able to carry on with our lives, we are even encouraged to do so, seeing as there is no longer a threat in the area. We can go back to focusing on our own lives, without stopping to pause and think about the tragedy that has just struck somebody else’s family and community. If that isn’t privilege, if that isn’t unfair, then I don’t know what is.

I sit at home with nothing but fond memories of my basketball career. I loved every minute of it, I loved the teammates who I consider friends to this day, and I loved the time spent with my teammates as we made our way home each

instruments that they can use for violence.

The public and law enforcement need to see these youth as more than just “gang members.”

They are not faceless. As I write this, I have received a University of Massachusetts Boston Alert about a fatal shooting nearby. “Harbor Point Shooting: UMass Boston Public Safety has reported this evening that there was a fatal shooting in the Harbor Point Apartment complex, adjacent to the UMass Boston campus. At this early stage of the investigation, authorities believe this was an isolated incident,

night after practice. We never had to experience a practice where one less teammate was there and was never going to return to us. We never experienced fear because of our choice to play basketball. Never once did this strike us as being a privilege that we weren’t appreciating fully, and perhaps that is the problem. I will go on appreciating the memories that I have, but I’ll be sure that Jonathan Dos Santos is included in them. He, and others like him, should never be forgotten. And they should never be ignored.

Crimaldi, Laura. “Teen Shot and Killed on Dorchester Street Was Making Gains in School.”Boston Globe, 13 June 2015.

Kennedy, David M., et al. “Youth Violence in Boston: Gun Markets, Serious Youth Offenders, and a Use-Reduction Strategy.” Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 59, no. 1, 1996, pp. 147–196. JSTOR. “West Roxbury Neighborhood Profile.” City-Data, City-Data.

4 “Dorchester Neighborhood Profile.” City-Data, City-Data.

5 Allen, Evan, et al. “After Confiding Fears, Teen Killed on Dorchester Street.” Boston Globe, 11 June 2015.

6 Martin, Tina. “Dorchester’s Grief: Coping After The Murder of 16-Year-Old Jonathan Dos Santos.” WGBH News, 15 July 2015 7 Michaelson, Rob. “A Gutsy Priest Battling Gang Violence in Boston.” NBC Boston, 8 Mar. 2017.

8 Braga, Anthony A. “Serious Youth Gun Offenders and the Epidemic of Youth Violence in Boston.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, vol. 19, no. 1, 2003, pp. 33–54. JSTOR. 1 2 3

WL | 23

THE HIDDEN IMAGE

by Jay Adams Illustrated by Yuexin Yu

“A majority of the population of the United States live in the middle class.”

That’s a sentence that has been repeated so much that we as a nation start to take comfort in it. We assume its validity because of its commonness, and we take comfort in it. The concept of the middle class is familiar, and in it, a sense that since most of us reside in this particular tax bracket, then those left are split between high income and poverty. Since we know that a majority of the population are already in this middle margin, then the number

WL | 24

of people divided between polar opposites must be small enough that poverty in the United States isn’t really a problem. For most Americans, there’s a distinct lack of exposure to anyone openly living in the lower middle to working class. We don’t see it. We assume it doesn’t exist.

It confirms the truth behind that sentence, that the major disparities of advantages in life only start to occur when you compare the upper class with the homeless. It has made us exempt from having to acknowledge the advantages our annual salary affords and it saves us from having

to feel guilty about being able to buy our own cup of coffee every morning. It has made us blind to the massive variation of privilege within our middle class populous.

That sentence tells us that the middle class is stable, that it’s the same all the way through.

Numbers say otherwise.

Let’s talk in terms of households. 27.8 million households live below the federal poverty level, 33.2 million are high income, and 64.8 million households fall into the middle class. The really fun part? About 25 percent of those in the

middle class make less than $35,000 a year. The rest make upwards of that. Another 25 percent of the remaining will make no less than $75,000.1 Alright, there’s a gap. A $75,000 margin that puts someone into the middle class. That means that within the same class 16.2 million households will continually make an annual salary that’s $15,000 less than another 16.2 million, and yet we will continually tell them that they are one and the same, that those $15,000 are not influential to how they live.

Fifteen thousand dollars is a movie ticket. It’s a new container of foundation. It’s a subscription to Netflix or Hulu, it’s being able to go out on the town with your friends or significant other, and it’s buying a new pair of socks to replace the threadbear ones you used to wear. Fifteen thousand dollars is having the peace of mind to know that if your car is totaled in an accident tomorrow, and by some stroke of luck no one is seriously injured, you will not have to choose between being evicted from your apartment or getting another car to get you to your job. It’s being able to see the relief on your child’s face when he or she unwraps that new laptop you bought them for college because their old one was from 2007 and took 20 minutes to start up.

It’s not having to choose between going to the hospital or buying groceries for a month.

And if you still don’t understand how important that money is, how big that margin is, go ask someone who lives below the poverty line.

Go ask the struggling single father of two kids who technically makes 150 percent of the federal poverty standard, which is a nice 2500 dollars a month.2 Ask him what an additional $15,000 a year would do for his family. Ask the older sister who chooses not to eat dinner two weeks in a row just so her younger brothers could have enough calories in their growing bodies to still play sports. Ask the parents who lost one of their children along with both of their jobs during the recession of 2008 what $15,000 could’ve done for their family.

Ask them how easy it’s been living in the lower middle class.

Ask them what their children do. What kids, who haven’t been allowed to have a normal childhood because they are made painfully aware of what it’s like to not have enough, are doing the second they become legally able to work. If the money from their paycheck doesn’t go to helping their guardians keep a roof over their head, then it goes to other “essential” things. Cell phones, clothes, shoes, cosmetics, sports equipment, and school supplies, just to name a few. As they get older, that money will

also go to a beat up car, gas, and depending on the state they live in, mandatory insurance.

By no fault of their own, teenagers find themselves working 30 hour weeks with two jobs, not only to support their families, but to maintain the expected standard of people their age. The general dynamic of families is exceedingly divergent in the middle class as the stress and responsibilities of adult life are put on children at younger ages that coincide with the lower income. It makes for a differing sense of normalcy and ideals within households, and therefore a different reality that exists in the middle class.

We are given privileges that we don’t even think of, things that are standard in everyday life, and it isn’t until we meet someone who doesn’t have the same standard, the same advantage, that we realize we had such a privilege in the first place. The concept of wealth is subjective, and it’s why the stress of being in the lower middle class or below the poverty line is not widely understood.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services created specific thresholds to measure the amount of people living below the poverty line.3 According to these guidelines, a teenager who lives with her two sisters, mother, and grandparents (family of six with one source of income) was living with a status of “low income.”

That is, her average household income was less than $32,000. To her, not having enough money means that she sells her car, shuts off her phone, and sells some of her clothes so her family can keep their house. To her friend, who falls into the “high income” category, not having enough money means she can’t go shopping at the mall and will have to wait a week before going to see the newest action movie.

This difference creates a massive misperception of what living within a financially strict lifestyle is like and that misperception leads us to continue to believe in the idea that unless you are at or below the poverty line, then you don’t really need help because you aren’t really poor. The concept of a uniform definition for wealth is perpetuated by this disconnect. If a person is never exposed to other meanings of what a lack of money could involve, then they assume that their definition is the only one possible. That is not to say we assume homeless people on the streets have the same financial troubles we do, but only that unless we can physically see someone struggling, we assume that everyone has the same experience in the middle class that we have.

This social construct is further maintained by

the image that most of the of the people who are struggling try to display. America is a capitalist society. Here we sell the dream that you can do or be anything you want. This nation was built on the idea that you could succeed no matter who you are, so it makes it especially shameful to be open about the fact that one’s struggling economically. To avoid the embarrassment most would feel talking about it, as well as the possible shame they would get from people around them, they simply pretend the problem doesn’t exist, and proceed to do their best to hide it from even their closest friends.

It is why the girl who lives just above the poverty line wore make up every day to school and wore expensive, name brand clothes and shoes. They didn’t just help her fit in with her friends, but these things also helped her ignore the stress that her family’s fiscal status put on her. They made her feel like she was “normal,” like she belonged to her middle class peers.

People project the image that they think will be acceptable in society, and will do much to maintain that image, even buy things they really don’t have the money for. In both the teenage and adult social structures, being acceptable is, at its base, having an income that allows for stability.

It’s having the money to be a part of standard society, to be not only financially in the middle class, but socially as well. It’s that $15,000. It’s being able to keep up with the social demands of your friend groups because you have the money to do so.

We blind ourselves to our privileges in order to save ourselves from the guilt of having them.

It is why we blame the victim instead of the aggressor. No, the disparity may not be our fault.

But when someone who is struggling for money and we blame them for it—“well, you should’ve saved more” and “clearly you’re not since you can wear clothes like that”—we are actively participating in keeping that disparity. By not acknowledging that there are those who are struggling, we are creating a greater divergence.

By desensitizing ourselves to what other people are going through, we are openly telling them, ourselves, and everyone around us that we don’t care.

It is a not a massive upheaval of the system that needs to take place, but change must happen within the people who make up the system. As a society, we have to learn to see past the superficial aspects of class if we want to see the disparities beneath. We need to accept that privilege exists if we’re ever going to change the way we live for the better.

Amadeo, Kimberly. “Are You in America’s Middle Class?” The Balance, 28 Oct. 2017.

“MassHealth Income Guidelines effective Nov 1, 2017.” Mass Legal Services, 25 Oct. 2017.

3 “Poverty Guidelines.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ASPE, 22 Mar. 2017.

1 2

WL | 25

WHEN DO WHITE STRAIGHT MALES HAVE THE LEAST PRIVILEGE?

by Emily Griffin Illustrated by Simon Johnson

In response to the title, many observers of American society would sensibly reply “never.”

Privilege, as defined when one first types it into Google, is “a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.”

Based on this definition, the qualities of being white, straight, and male certainly do give a person advantages compared to those who don’t fall into the given profile. In law enforcement, for example, white individuals are only one fourth times as likely as black individuals to be arrested for a drug offense, even though the ratios of white drug users and black drug users are nearly equal.1 In schools, LGBT students are more likely to be bullied. Compared to their peers, LGBT youth skip school to avoid bullying five times as much.2 In terms of sexual violence, only 10 percent of rape victims are male, the majority being females.3 Clearly, there are many instances where being white, straight, or male offers advantages in security. But to say that white straight males are always the most privileged is incorrect. When we consider the definition of privilege as an advantage or immunity, one may argue that in many social situations, white straight males have the least.

In high school, I had a white, gay male friend who I’ll call Ethan. Ethan was the critical, philosophical type, and one of his favorite words to use was “fag.”

“It’s okay because I am one,” he told me once.

This doesn’t mean that gay people like the word “fag,” or that they would identify themselves with the word, but in a Massachusetts classroom environment where the air is so saturated with political correctness that it could power a fog machine at a Wiz Khalifa concert, one would expect some backlash to the incorporation of “fag” into everyday language. (It should be acknowledged that simply being a Massachusetts school does not free the learning environment from bigoted-themed bullying. The classroom in which Ethan made this comment contained very politically-minded people. Some classrooms in the school did not. In comparison to other states, Massachusetts is a good example to use for where viciously bigoted bullying is frowned upon, being one of only 20 states in the U.S. with

WL | 26

laws to protect students from being bullied for sexual or gender orientation.4) But there was no backlash. Ethan’s sexuality gave him social immunity. He had the right to use it.

The same could be said about other controversial language. White people shouldn’t say the “N” word and males shouldn’t use the “C” word. It gets people angry. It makes the speaker look distasteful and disrespectful.

For a white straight male, there are many things he can’t do without appearing disrespectful.

A few weeks ago, I attended an on-campus event at which there was an invitation given to any person to write down an attribute of themselves they were proud of and tape it to a display poster. On this poster, there were several celebration-worthy answers: “I am proud to be be bi,” “I am proud to be gay and latino,” “I am proud to be black,” “I am proud to be ginger.”

There were no posts that said “I am proud to be a white straight male.” Had there been, it would have been seen as, at best, a joke, and at worst, bigoted and misogynistic.

If it’s dangerous to say things like that, wouldn’t that make socially acceptable pride of identity a privilege that white straight men lack? Would the perception we have of them as privileged work in reverse for some social scenarios?

When pitching the idea for this article to the magazine, I was warned that it may be offensive.

In response, I asked if it would be safer for me to only write about reverse privilege in regards to straightness and maleness, being the white, bisexual female that I am.

The response was a slow, carefully calculated “yes.” My response was: “But doesn’t that prove my point?”

Because I am female, I have the right to suggest that females have more social immunity when talking about male privilege. Because I am bi, I have the right to suggest that queer people have more social immunity when talking about straight privilege. But because of my pasty, Caucasian meat suit, I would be wise to omit anything in the realm of race.

And so, when it comes to participating in discussions over privilege, the white straight males must have the least.

One might argue that this is not a lack of privilege, but simply a natural compliance with the idea that if a condition is outside of your own experience, you have less credibility to speak about it, and people will value your opinion less.

If this is true, then what gives anybody who is not a white straight male the grounds to assume what it’s like to be one? If I am not a white straight male, can I truly argue, with credibility, to a white straight male that his natural condition has made his life easier than mine? Perhaps it has, and he doesn’t even know it. Or perhaps he is a white straight male who has had a tough life, with his privileges existing only latently—meaning that, yes, perhaps his whiteness, straightness, and maleness could have given him advantages in some context, but in his life so far, have given him little.

The vast majority of people who will read this essay are enrolled in or have gone through college. Despite any lack of whiteness, straightness, or maleness this audience may have, its members have the privilege of higher education, an advantage which my white, straight male friend, Lenny, lacks.

In school, Lenny was quite sharp—in fact, he still wants to be a teacher. But college was off the table for him because he has to work instead.

His uncle (who he lives with because his mom is dying of cancer) is strict about money, and forbade college. Lenny considers himself lucky to be a cashier, though. For a while, he wasn’t allowed to have a job because it would have raised his uncle’s taxes.

An acknowledgment should be made that Lenny is not the only person who has been unable to go to college fresh out of high school; plenty of people who attend college have had just as little, if not less, help than Lenny when it came to getting into college themselves.

However, it may also be considered that anyone who has experienced higher education has already become part of an advantaged pool moving forward in life.

What right have any of us to tell Lenny that he’s had an easy break? His qualities of being white, straight, and male are not what make his situation more difficult. There is undoubtedly a diverse pool of individuals struggling with similar setbacks. If we acknowledge that

poverty, unsupportive relations, and sickness in the family are the under-privileges in cases such as Lenny’s, then why do our social taboos coil so tightly around qualities such as gender, race, or sexualty?

It’s because those are the qualities that we tend to see or assume first, and therefore the easiest qualities that we can use to categorize people. It can be difficult to tell if a person is rich or poor, and impossible to tell if they have the advantage of a supportive, healthy family just by looking. But the color of their skin is obvious and, oftentimes, an assumption of their gender and sexual orientation seems obvious, too.

Race is one of the most visual and divisive qualities. Privilege due to race or skin color is often discussed in roughly two mindsets. The first is the fact that a person’s appearance affects the way that person is treated. For example, a black motorist is more likely to be pulled over for an arbitrary drug search by the police than a white motorist.5 The second mindset is historically angled.

African Americans were enslaved and later harshly discriminated against by white people.

Native Americans were displaced, discriminated against, and made victim to what could certainly be classified as a drawn-out genocide at the hands of white people. Now, the most striking poverty rates are amongst people with African American or Native American heritage.6 Due to past actions, there is widespread situational inequality. Even if no one is directly telling a child of African American or Native American background that she is not allowed to be successful, it may be difficult for her to achieve socioeconomic mobility if her family has been unable to escape an impoverished environment for some time.

Both arguments are valid and relevant. It is wrong that a black male should have to feel more nervous about being confronted by a police officer than a white male, and it is a perfect example of how white privilege can impact a person’s life in a very dire scenario.

But notice that in describing the second mindset, I transitioned from descriptors such as white and black. This is because one of my best friends, Rosa, has a mother who is Cape Verdean with Native American heritage and a father with Caucasian heritage, but skin paler than mine. Meanwhile, Rosa’s cousin, a 10-yearold boy named Kevin, has Native American,

Caucasian, Cape Verdean, and other African American heritage, but white skin paired with bright red hair and freckles.

Even if Kevin does grow up to be what people see as a white male who is unaffected by the racial biases that people hold against men of color, his history will not change. The second argument of racial privilege would still be relevant to him, despite the color of his skin.

Categorizing people based upon race can lead to inaccurate, stereotypical assumptions, whether it be a biased person expecting a black man to be carrying drugs or expecting a white man to be spoiled and inherently bigoted.

At this point, the potentially offensive nature of the thesis “white straight males have less privilege sometimes” should be analyzed. The accusation of privilege has become an insult

in our culture. The classic snappy response to a person who steps out of their realm of social immunity is the words “check your privilege.”

Being called privileged, especially in a racial, gendered, or sexual context, is negative because it implies a lack of understanding for those in different situations, and a willingness to accept the disadvantage of other individuals. It implies that a person has had an easy ride, which suggests qualities of laziness and naivety.

Is it offensive to females to suggest that a female has more privilege than a male to speak when on the topic of gender? Or should a woman feel empowered by the fact that she has more social immunity?

Some may argue that having to tiptoe around discussions of volatile societal issues is not a significant disadvantage when compared to the barrage of statistics of the disadvantages posed to those who are not white straight males. Afterall, being imprisoned, bullied, or raped deserves more sympathy than simply being discouraged from self-advocating within the realm of gender, race, or sexuality.

They are right. The statistical advantages that a white straight male holds in scenarios involving law enforcement, bullying, and sexual assault illustrate perfectly the fact that white straight males have the most advantage in an array of scenarios. But if these statistics are to be taken as serious indicators of special advantage for these scenarios, then so can those which indicate that there are disadvantages to being white, straight, or male in others. For example, white people are the most likely to commit suicide. In 2015, 70 percent of all suicides in the U.S. were white males.7 Gay couples tend have more successful marriages than straight couples do.8 Women live longer than men.9 To consider the disadvantages that stereotypically privileged people might have does not mean that the disadvantages and hardships of others should be in any way diminished or ignored. Tension results from a society divided due to opinions on race, gender, and sexual orientation. Despite vilification of the white straight male being an understandable reaction to any instance of him expressing discontent with the way society regards him, resolution can never be found if any party feels as if it doesn’t have the ability to express its viewpoint.

If we are to accept that a white straight male has, in select cases, some amount of disadvantage, it follows that we should rethink our knee-jerking instinct to vilify him in respect to the rest of society. This has the potential to empower those who normally feel less privileged, and to acknowledge the white straight males who feel disgruntled about how we stereotype them.

When people are categorized, their stories are assumed because of their looks. Their personalities become assumed because of their lives.

Life is complicated enough.

Nellis, Ashley. “The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons.” The Sentencing Project, 14 June 2016, Web. “Gay Bullying Statistics.” Bullying Statistics, 7 July 2015, Web. “Victims of Sexual Violence: Statistics.” Victims of Sexual Violence: Statistics | RAINN, Web. 4 Thoreson, Ryan. “Discrimination Against LGBT Youth in US Schools.” Human Rights Watch, 6 June 2017, Web. 5 Alexander, Michelle. The new Jim Crow: mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New Press, 2011.

6 “Poverty Demographics.” Rural Poverty and Well Being, United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 25 Oct. 2017. Web. 7 “Suicide Statistics.” About Suicide, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. Web 8 Lang, Nicco. “The Reason Queer Couples Don’t Get Divorced as Often as Hetero Couples.” Sex and Relationships, Alternet, 20 Apr. 2016. Web. 9 Waldron, I, and S Johnston. “Why do women live longer than men?” Journal of human stress., U.S. National Library of Medicine, June 1976. Web. 1 2 3

WL | 27

REFLECTIONS ON PRIVILEGE

by Samuel O’Neill Illustrated by Emily Griffin

I remember, almost to the exact moment, when I became ashamed of my heritage. I was 17, a junior in high school, sitting in an American history class, reading in my textbook about early European colonial relations with native tribes. There was a little yellow box in the margin of the textbook that had a short anecdote in it. It summarized the story of a

WL | 28

small tribe in northeastern Canada who were so distraught over the effects that alcohol was having on their people that they tried to canoe across the Atlantic Ocean; that they might treat with the king of England and convince him to stop sending alcohol to the Americas. They were all picked up by slave ships or drowned in the cold Atlantic.

I realized, at that moment when I was 17, that the history of white men in this world is a history of violence, oppression, exploitation, and degradation. I realized the price that was paid so that I could exist as a white man in America. And what’s more, I realized the responsibility that I had, and continue to have, to do everything in my power to pay that price back.

Which is the point. For white Americans to recognize what they inherited from their ancestors, both the moral weight of those ancestors’ crimes, and the ethical responsibility to pay for them. There are those who would claim, though, that the past is the past, that the only way forward is if we look forward. I would agree, if history did not provide a clear road map of mistakes for us to avoid, and if we white American men and women did not continue to benefit from our ancestors’ exploitative practices today.

Charles W. Mills, a political philosopher and professor at the City University of New York, expresses the true state of race relations in America effectively. In his book, “The Racial Contract,” Mills claims that the “Social Contract” that western society was founded on is, in fact, a “racial contract.”1 That the western world was built on the founding of race as an idea. Think, for a moment, what it means for someone to be well-off, to be wealthy, or to be powerful. There are a limited number of resources in the world, so for one person to be well-off, another person must, necessarily, be deprived in some way. That is the idea behind Mill’s “racial contract.” For one people, white people, to be better off in western society, there must be another people, people of color, who are deprived and underprivileged. Moreover, the deprived people are robbed, exploited, murdered, and raped, all so those who are better off can enjoy what’s taken from those who are deprived.

If this idea is difficult to understand, all one must do is look at how people of color in this country are treated. Per the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a black man is 10 times more likely to be arrested for a drug crime than a white man is, despite the fact that white Americans use drugs at a higher rate than black Americans.2 Black Americans make up 13 percent of America’s population, but account for 24 percent of those fatally shot by police.3 According to the Washington Post, as of June 2016, “police have shot and killed a young black man (ages 18 to 29)—such as Michael Brown in

Ferguson, Mo.—175 times since January 2015; 24 of them were unarmed.”3 The statistics continue into every facet of American life. And when one studies them without knowing the racial foundation on which this country was founded, all one will see is troubling patterns. But when viewed through the lens of the “racial contract,” it will become clear that the mistreatment and oppression of people of color in America is what American society and government was designed to do.

I can only exist as a white man in America, with all the privileges that that entails, if someone else does not. I can only be less likely to be stopped by police, if someone else is more likely to be stopped. I can only have a better chance of being hired for a job, if someone else has a worse chance.

My fear in writing this article is twofold.

I fear that it will seem as if my intention is to

difficult to spot, as racism and racial privilege have become so engrained in our society that they are as ubiquitously unnoticeable as a billboard. But we must see them, and we must understand them, and, what’s more, those of us who carry the moral weight that comes with being born a white American, must use our privilege to fight for justice and equality.

One way that we, white Americans, can help in furthering the fight for an equal society is recognizing the ways in which we acquiesce to our racist heritage. We must not buy into the myth that racism is no longer an issue in America. We must not pretend that racial issues don’t exists simply to avoid our discomfort in discussing those issues. We must recognize that the “American Dream” of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is essentially impossible for people who have been systematically oppressed for hundreds of years. And, for those few white Americans who have considered the falsehood that “reverse racism” is an actual issue, remember, all people are capable of being prejudiced, but it is only possible for a white man to espouse racial prejudice, and still become president.5 There are countless ways that those of us with privilege can help further bend the arc of history toward justice. But the most important thing is that we recognize our privilege. The moment that we feel oppressed, or disregarded, or exploited by the powers around us, we must remember. We must remember that our ancestors were not the ones who built this nation on their whip-scarred backs. We must remember that our grandparents were not the ones who were forced to use different bathrooms, leave through the side entrance, and sit in the back of the bus. We must remember that we benefit from the exploitation of people of color every day, in unseen and unfelt ways, but we benefit all the same. Once we accept this reality, then we can help to change it.

I can only exist as a white man in America, with all

the privileges that that entails, if someone else does

not. I can only be less likely to be stopped by police, if someone else is more likely to be stopped. I can

only have a better chance of being hired for a job, if someone else has a worse chance.

make other white Americans carry the same shame that I do; and I fear that that will breed resentment in someone’s mind. Shame is the tool that I use to remind myself of my social responsibilities, but recognition of history and reality works just as well.

As Ta-Nehisi Coates says, “American notions of race are the product of racism, not the other way around.”4 Racism has not been removed from American society, but the language used to talk about race has changed. Politicians talk about the need for “law and order” instead of the need for police in black neighborhoods.

They talk about “secure borders” instead of isolationism and quota laws. These things are

For more ways to help, visit racialequalitytools.org Mills, Charles W. The Racial Contract. N.p.: Cornell UP, 2014. Print.

“Race and Criminal Justice.” American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., n.d. Web. Lowery, Wesley. “Analysis | Aren’t More White People than Black People Killed by Police? Yes, but No.” The Washington Post. WP Company, 11 July 2016. Web. 4 Coates, Ta-Nehisi. “How Racism Invented Race in America.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 23 June 2014. Web. 5 “Racial Equity Tools.” Core Concepts • Racial Equity Tools. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 2 3

WL | 29

PRIVILEGE, WOMEN, AND HARD SCIENCE

by Ahmed Al Salah Illustrated by Meaghan Sarno

The field of hard science, which encompasses natural sciences like biology, chemistry, physics, and so on, is a burgeoning area of study and profession. And given both the recent growth in those fields, and the increasingly stark gender disparities in our society, it’s important that the arena of hard science be analyzed through a soft science lens. That is, we must always be aware of the social issues that are present in areas of opportunity. There is no doubt that there are gender differences that manifest biologically and socially, yet it is also undeniable that most gender differences are socially constructed. That is, there are “no differences in overall intrinsic aptitude” between men and women, but males still dominate in most professional and social fields.

Knowing this information, I disagree with a common notion as to why men dominate the field of hard science. A notion supported

by Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at Harvard University. In “The Science of Gender and Science,” which is a debate article between Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke, who is also a professor of cognitive psychology at Harvard, Pinker claims that “there is more than ‘a shared of evidence’ for sex differences that are relevant to statistical gender disparities in elite hard science departments.”1 In other words, the inherent differences between men and women can explain why women are underrepresented in the hard sciences. The “evidences,” though, that Pinker points to, are not the manifestation of biological differences, but social constructions that have been exploited to reinforce males’ roles as “the forces causing this gap are social factors.”1 Women have less privilege in the hard science fields than their male counterparts, not because women are biologically incapable, but

WL | 30

because our society has been constructed to rob them of opportunity.

In “The Science of Gender and Science,” Spelke disagrees with Pinker that “social forces are over-rated as causes of gender differences… and intrinsic differences in motives are the biggest factor of all.”1

Spelke and Pinker answer why males monopolize elite science and mathematics professions. Essentially, according to Pinker, there are six major intrinsic gender disparities that affect women’s roles in hard science fields: “priorities in life, interest in people versus things, risk-taking, mental transformation, such as mental rotation and spatial visualization, mathematical reasoning, and finally, variability.”1 On the other hand, Spelke believes that although gender is not “indistinguishable,” the biological differences have been conflated with “social factors” that cause gender disparities.

That is to say, “there are no differences in overall intrinsic aptitude for science and mathematics between women and men.”1 Unlike Pinker, Spelke is insisting that there are “no” gender differences as far as ability to comprehend and take part in the hard sciences, but rather that society constructs gender differences from early

childhood. What’s more, those social factors have been the “biggest” reason behind males’ dominance in hard science fields. Spelke sees two major perspectives that have led to the “bias evaluation” of females in the hard science arena.

The first perspective is the argument that males are more capable of “developing knowledge” than females.

From this standpoint, females are called “ ‘ e m p a t h i z e r s ’… [ a s though] males are innately predisposed to learn about objects and mechanical relationships,” and thus males are “systemizers.”1 Subsequently, males are seen as “more apt to develop knowledge and skills that lead to math and science.”1 On the contrary, Spelke believes that statistics prove “[no] sex differences” in building knowledge.1 Instead, researches have shown that males and females are, “equally interested in objects,” and that the common ground for this equity is when “infants don’t divide up the labor of understanding the world… [They] are both interested in objects and in people, and they learn about both.”1 The second perspective that Spelke sees is that men are believed to be physically superior, and thus have more “ability” to produce.

However, Spelke believes that those physical abilities are irrelevant, as they have no bearing on one’s ability to participate in many, if not all, of the hard science fields. That said, these two perspectives that Spelke points to have been socially constructed not only to undermine women’s abilities in general, but to subvert their privilege as well. Therefore, “biased evaluation” against women becomes obvious, and moreover, biased encouragement and expectation are constantly enforced by society at large.1 Women encounter biased evaluation, indeed, from early childhood, when they are exposed

to biased expectation and encouragement. For instance, children with traditionally male names are expected to be “strong, intelligent and active,” while children with, as Spelke writes, “female names [are] expected to be little, soft.” As a consequence of such a bias expectation from early childhood, “patterns of encouragement,” in sum, provide male children with more support than females receive. Therefore, when those children grow up, the males may be “more” productive because they received a great deal of encouragement to be so.1 In this respect, a study shows, “in answer to the question would they hire the candidate, 70 percent said yes for male, 45 percent for the female.”1 That is not to say that women are more or less productive than men, but a crucial reason behind any male superiority in productivity is a result of society’s bias evaluation from early in a child’s life— not by women’s non-productivity. And where evaluation has been biased, privilege cannot survive.

Not surprisingly, the social factors that subvert female productivity and privilege have a paradoxical role in society. In this respect, an observational study by multiple professors at Yale University provides data that is “tested,” and that proves Spelke’s claim that social factors create “bias evaluation” against women in hard science fields. The major evidence of the study, titled “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students,” by Corinne, Dovidio, Brescoll, Grahama, and Handelsmana, shows that in STEM fields there is an obvious “faculty” gender discrimination that has undermined the perception of the “competence” of women in these fields. As a consequence of this gender discrimination, it is argued, “cultural messages” create the belief that “women’s lack of competence” is what causes her absence in science, when that underrepresentation is actually due to hiring patterns biased against women. Mainly, there are two major hypotheses, out of four, that support the study’s argument.

The first hypothesis concerns the gender competition, that is, “faculty participants viewed female student as less competent…than identical male students.” And because of this unjust gender competition, women may wish to avoid taking part in the biased system all together; thereby, not only losing the “competition,” but confidence in their ability to take part in hard sciences as well. Therefore, the fact that the “starting salary offered for the female student, $26,507.94, was significantly lower than that of $30,238.10 to the male student” is justified by the social factors that prevent women from participating in those fields of study. The second

hypothesis, Mediation and Moderation, dictates that while female students are considered less “competent than male,” they will not only have lower wages, but they are also “less likely to be hired.” Society’s expectation of women, accordingly, is that a subtle sexism bias that points “unintentional negativity toward women, as contrasted with a more blatant form of conscious hostility toward women.”

Accordingly, and as Spelke insists, the study concluded that “[females] receive less faculty encouragement and financial rewards than identical male counterparts.” In other words, social factors have been the biggest reason behind gender discrimination against females in hard science fields, essentially as a result of the society’s biased expectation, encouragement, and, thus, competition.

On the contrary, in an article titled “Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape,” Ceci, Ginther, Kahn, and Williams found that women have been “underrepresented” in certain academic fields of science because they are missing in hard science fields. Basically, they distinguish between fields of science like math, chemistry, and physics (GEEMP), and fields of life science, psychology, and social science (LPS). The authors oppose the claim that social factors have undermined women’s ability in GEEMP fields, despite the following results: “In all GEEMP fields, 2010, for example, women comprised only 25% to 44% of tenure-track assistant professors and 7% to 16% of full professors [while] in the LPS fields, the comparable figures show that women hold 66% of the tenure-track assistant professorships in psychology, 45% in social science (excluding economics), and 38% in life science; for full professorships.”

So even though women are missing from GEEMP fields, they are apparently dominating the LPS fields. Accordingly, the academic fields are balanced if we look at all science fields holistically.

Since women are missing in math-intensive fields, one could easily suppose that women are less productive than their male counterparts.

That is why Ceci, Ginther, Kahn, and Williams are concerned with gender “productivity,” which economists call the “comparative advantage.”

Comparative advantage is basically when people work where they are more productive. Thus, it does not concern gender discrimination, but rather, where this gender can be more productive. In GEEMP fields, for instance, women are found less productive than their males counterparts and research shows that

on average women publish fewer papers than men. In addition, women are found with less flexible work conditions, thereby reinforcing their underrepresentation in GEEMP fields.

Ceci, Ginther, Kahn, and Williams concluded that women have “lower wages and promotion [because] women not only were likely to prefer to work fewer hours but actually did so.”

It may be true that women are missing in the hard science fields, are less flexible to work conditions, and, according to economists, are less “productive,” yet those facts are only the consequences of social factors. Because although the core of this claim is valid, it is flawed in the fact that it does not look at the roots of the issue.

Instead, look at why women are less productive in this field. Why are they “less” flexibile to work conditions? Why are they missing in these fields?

Beside biased expectation and encouragement of women by society, another answer would be maternity. If married men are more flexible in these fields, it is due to the fact that their married female counterparts face the unique challenge of maternity. Therefore, “scientific data” may not reflect the whole story, because the other part of the story has entirely to do with societal factors.

In an individual study at Yale University, Eileen Pollack, professor of creative writing at University of Michigan, tells her story in “Why Are There Still So Few Women in Science.” Pollack was an “exceptional” student in physics at Yale, but she did not receive any “encouragement” from her parents or her instructors. Instead, when Pollack showed interest in physics, her instructor suggested that “girls can’t do physics.” Similarly, near the beginning of her educational journey into physics, Pollack scored a failing grade on her midterm, and in response, her parents asked her to “switch her major,” instead of encouraging her to improve her grade. Consequently, Pollack finds that women are “unappreciated” in the STEEM fields—essentially because “social context” plays a key role in establishing gender differences.

While biased evaluation, expectation, encouragement, and economists’ comparative advantage have been introduced as causes of gender differences in hard science fields, it is essentially the design of our society that women be underprivileged in certain ways.

The elite practitioners of the hard sciences have maintained and exploited gender disparities to run a productive market instead of building a better society. Thus, I assert that social factors are the crucial reason behind bias and discrimination against women in hard science fields.

Pinker, Steven and Elizabeth Spelke. “The Science of Gender and Science: A Debate.” Mind/Brain/Behavior Initiative (MBB) at Harvard University, 22 April 2005. Web: 16 May 2005.

Mind/Brain/Behavior Initiative (MBB) at Harvard University, 22 April 2005. Web: 16 May 2005 1

WL | 31

WOMEN CEOs: WINNERS AT A LOSING GAME...NO LONGER

Why Women Aren’t CEOs, Media + Corporate Representation, and the Motivation for That C-Suite

by Natalia Mirabito Illustrated by Natalia Mirabito

The good news: Female CEO numbers have reached an all time high, at about a 50 percent growth rate. The bad news: Female CEO numbers have sluggishly climbed, at about a 6.4 percent growth rate.

Gather ‘round ladies, because female representation and leadership on the latest Fortune 500 list isn’t sitting pretty for us. Eleven more female CEOs have earned a spot on Fortune’s renowned list—jumping from 21 to

WL | 32

32 this year—while the list’s majority contains nearly 500 able-bodied, business-savvy men.

Inspiring. Sort of. That is not to say these men do not deserve a spot on Fortune 500 recognition.

They, too, have worked hard to achieve their Fortune status. The issue at hand is deeper than an internationally broadcasted listing of financial and business success. The Fortune list only cuts skin deep.

With the addition of 64 CEOs in

approximately 50 years, the numbers are stale.

Approximately 1.28 women earn their way on to the list each year. With hundreds of thousands of women climbing the corporate ladder, who will be The One? It sounds eerily exclusive.

The apparent lack of female CEO representation is deeply rooted within the corporate pipeline, beginning from lower office cubicles to sky high C-Suites. C-Suite executives refer to top senior executive titles that commonly

begin with the letter “C,” such as chief executive officer (CEO), chief financial officer (CFO), chief operating officer (COO). Regrettably, numerous powerful and wealthy women did not make the list this time around—in the eyes of Fortune, that is. But just you wait...

Who exactly are some top female CEOs? Here is a sampling of notable brands and the women behind them, paired with their ranking on Fortune 500: - Mary Barra, General Motors #8 - Ginni Rometty, IBM #32 - Indra Nooyi, PepsiCo #44 - Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed Martin #56 - Meg Whitman, Hewlett-Packard #59 - Phebe Novakovic, General Dynamics #90 - Marissa Mayar, Yahoo #498 With 30 percent less pay—a $900,000 difference—it’s worth noting that women make up 45 percent of the labor force and 39 percent of mid-level managers. Continuing through the pipeline, female senior management representation slumps down to 25 percent.

The New York Times article “Why Women Aren’t CEOs, According to Women Who Almost Were” mentions Jan Fields, a former McDonalds crew member who rose to President.

She recounts, “You’re the only woman...it’s very lonely.” This struck a chord in me, reminding me of something a general manager in finance told me: it wasn’t unusual for her to go days in the corporate office without seeing a single woman.

Further contributions to this New York Times article highlight executives of DuPont and University of Chicago who felt “targeted... in the way of the company’s future,” and, “men were being promoted within two years, women in three. It wasn’t as overt as, ‘She’s too aggressive,’ it came down more to, ‘We’re not sure she’s ready for that job.’” These claims are realities for many women in business that are deemed “inadequate,” “bossy,” or “unsure” by male (and female!) colleagues.

In light of the following derogatory comments, I invite you to bite the bullet and bear with me. Motivation is only a few paragraphs away.

These derogatory comments below are taken from social media comments as reactions from TED Talks given by Women CEOs. Some may say that these hurtful ideologies are fabrications by women themselves looking to cut deals, take advantage of sympathy, take the easy way out, have a pity party—every excuse in the book.

These comments are a reminder of what we women stand up to and counteract each day in the office, behind our desks, and before company executives who do not see our potential. They are a reminder to be stronger than these words and exert resilience as unapologetic self-advocates.

“The reason we have fewer women in CEO roles is because more men have the skills and talents required to be successful. It’s as simple as that.”

“Women are a waste of time and money.

Women produce babies, men produce everything else.”

“I tried working for a woman, but she had PMS & ESP. Yup, a bitch that knew everything.”

However, there is good news! The Rockefeller Foundation aims to place 100 female chief executives in the Fortune 500 by 2025 because of their “100x25 Campaign.”

The Rockefeller Foundation conducted their annual survey, CEO’s & Gender: A Media Analysis. The goal of the CEO & Gender Media Audit is to evaluate the media coverage of CEOs in various situations and determine if there are differences in the way male and female CEOs are covered. Yes, as you may have guessed, there sure is.

Methodology was conducted through IBM Watson’s tone analyzer, a program which has a technologically advanced ability to obtain and analyze company press releases, media coverage, and related materials, associating a numerical range in accordance of gender mention and tone complexities.

The research is thorough, as Rockefeller and Global Strategy Group conducted analyses of 20 CEOs’ media coverage in the following areas: those hired or appointed internally, those who were publicly fired or resigned due to public pressure, those retired, or those involved in crisis.

Here is a selection of the notable research findings from IBM Watson and The Rockefeller Foundation: - 16 percent of articles analyzing female CEOs talked about personal life, compared to eight percent of articles about male CEOs. - Female CEOs are 2.5 times more likely to be blamed for crisis—80 percent more likely to be exact—compared to 31 percent for men - Within “crisis news coverage,” 49 percent of female CEO articles mention gender, while only four percent of male-focused articles mention gender.

- Hardly any articles surrounding male CEOs discuss children or family. Rather, male-oriented articles discuss retirement, post-career ambitions, social life, and personal plans.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York studied women executives’ success in relationships to company value in a study titled Gender and Dynamic Agency: Theory and Evidence on the Compensation of Top Executives. This 2015 case

study found that in times of company success, men’s wealth increased 44 percent, while female wealth increased only 13 percent. Oddly enough, when company value decreased, men’s wealth decreased 33 percent, while women’s wealth plummeted 63 percent. Yikes.

So, what are we young professionals to do?

Where do we go for support, mentorship, and inspiration? Where does the pipeline lead us? We must look to each other as allies as resourceful, talented, and driven partners in business. Do your due diligence and familiarize yourself with their LinkedIn profile and job history—connect with them if you haven’t already. Network with the women you admire—get to know them beyond their job title. Start small. The simplest way to start is by saying “hello” or “good morning” when entering the office each day. A simple introductory acknowledgement goes a long way.

Never be afraid to ask an admired female manager or coworker about their experience in the workforce. If your office environment doesn’t lend itself to this opportunity, reach out online to a female career and millennial development influencer. A good place to find such individuals is through Forbes contributors and LinkedIn. Whomever you choose to speak with, consider your wording carefully, and do your best to communicate this request in person. The question “can I pick your brain?” is perhaps one of the oddest pickup lines out there to date. If anything, it creates a harsh and off-putting feeling with what should feel like an opportunity for inspiration and insight for both women involved. There are endless alternatives for congenial and thoughtful ways to ask a coworker or manager for some quality one-onone professional development time over coffee.

When the time comes, ask her where she started her career journey and listen—really listen—to the insights she shares with you. Take notes. Come prepared with thoughtful questions to drive the direction of the conversation; consider questions about her experience and recommendations as well as your own individual questions regarding your specific career or industry ambitions and questions.

The first time around, it may feel like a big ask of someone that is “above you,” but there is a good chance that, hopefully, the woman you ask this open-ended question to will appreciate your interest, recognition, and openness to some bits of wisdom. Remember that she, too, was once in the same entry-level, new-girl stage of transition that you are. Remember, you can do this. Remember, you have to start somewhere.

Remember, it was never a dress.

WL | 33

FREEDOM TO LIVE IN COLOR

by Julia Graves Illustrated by Simon Johnson

It’s December, and the holiday season is in full swing. Your work is throwing its annual Christmas party, ugly sweaters and questionable punch included. Everyone is bringing their boyfriends and their girlfriends, their fiancees, their husbands and their wives—except you.

The reasoning? You’re gay, and in bringing your partner to a work function, you run the risk of being fired. You have remained closeted within your workplace environment; your cubicle features no heart-rendering wedding photos or vacation shots, and your speech is tailored to conceal your sexuality. It is a skill honed from years of practice; a default defense mechanism saving you from the world of awkward inquiry and subtle discrimination that incurs upon coming out.

Despite it being the 21st century, heterosexual privilege is often overlooked; pushed aside under the false pretense of equality. While the concept of losing a job due to sexual orientation may seem outdated, according to a 2013 national survey by the Pew Research Center, 21 percent of LGBT employees admitted to falling victim to workplace discrimination.1 Twelve percent reported losing a job due to their sexual orientation: in 2015, a transgender man working for a loan company in Mississippi was forced to abandon his job after his employer discovered that his driver’s license listed him as female.1 Outside the workplace, statistics reveal that “approximately two-thirds of gays and lesbians have been the target of verbal abuse and approximately one-third have been the target of physical violence.”2 That number doesn’t even factor in the abuse targeting bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals. In the time since the Supreme Court ruled gay marriage to be legal within the United States, the general public has come to assume that members of the LGBTQ+ community now stand on an equal platform. While the legalization of gay marriage was a monumental step in the right direction, (prior to June of 2015, legal unions between same-sex couples varied from state to state), it is crucial to recognize that the right to marry is not the only social divide between heterosexuals and members of other sexualities.

The privileges of being heterosexual are the products of a society in which being straight is normalized from birth—a concept defined as heteronormativity, or the assumption that everyone is straight unless stated otherwise.

WL | 34

Heterosexuals are not labeled separately by society in any sense, whether it be socially, politically or eco-nomically.3 Heteronormativity, often accompanied by cisnormativity (one’s anatomy corresponding with their gender identity) ingrains itself in everyone at a startlingly young age. Infant onesies read “ladies’ man” and gendered toys promote adherence to traditional gender roles. Girls like pink and play with dolls while boys like blue and play with cars. The lack of representation for alternate sexualities in media and pop culture is overwhelming. When children watch television, they see an onslaught of traditional heterosexual characters and couples. Main characters on television scarcely deviate from the sexual norms, and the instances in which they do often feature heavy stereotypes. Not all gay men utilize hand gestures when speaking, or have a deep interest in fashion or cosmetics. Not all lesbians have masculine haircuts and wear khakis.

Such habits are completely unrelated to sexual orientation and exist entirely separate from gender. Hence, not only are young people who are coming to terms with their sexuality largely denied role models, they are also conditioned to believe that if they are indeed gay or bisexual they must adhere to the boxes in which society has sorted these sexualities. In an age where technology and media are so prevalent, it is a necessity to provide the LGBTQ+ community with a fair amount of representation in order to provide youth with role models of all kinds, as well as an overarching concept of acceptance for people of every sexuality.

The normalization of heterosexuality ensures that straight people never have to come out of the closet or come to terms with their sexuality.

Homosexual people don’t simply come out once and for all; but rather over and over and over again repeatedly throughout their lives.

Every time they move to a new city, begin a new job, make a new friend—odds are that at some point or other there is going to be a conversation regarding sexual orientation. It is a confrontation that comes with varying levels of difficulty that is heavily dependent on the situation. Heterosexuals never have to live with the fear of negative consequence in relation to their sexuality. No familial relationships will be damaged nor budding friendships cut short by the presence of homophobia. Heterosexuals are free to roam about in public society and

engage in the smallest, most innocent gestures of affection. On the contrary, members of the LGBTQ+ community experience intense scrutiny and at times fend off verbal and physical harassment should they even hold hands. Imagine not being able to go out on a date with your significant other without the underlying fear of violence. Seems implausible?

That is heterosexual privilege.

Religious and educational institutions are another arena in which heteronormativity is strongly enforced. While exceptions and acceptance are beginning to spread, religion is typically accompanied by the concept that marriage is strictly between man and woman.

Being that it is often introduced fairly early on in life, this can mean that LGBTQ+ people raised with religious backgrounds are subject to repeatedly being told that their sexuality is at best abnormal and unaccepted, and at worst an abomination that will only end in fire and brimstone. For youth, this can incur a very complex struggle between the faith in which they were raised and their sexual orientation.

Heterosexuals never have to grapple with this level of internal conflict and are free to involve themselves in their religious community without being shunned or becoming targets of homophobic discrimination.

Businesses and organizations can also utilize religious grounds in order to deny services to LGBTQ+ individuals, even in states where legislature extends protection in regards to sexual orientation. In the case of couple Todd and Mark Wathen of Chicago, not one but two facilities rebuffed them when searching for a wedding venue in 2011. One attempt even garnered the couple a Biblical lecture.

So-called “traditional” marriages are not met with such invalidation, nor are they faced with the possibility of not being able to celebrate their union with their loved ones at a public reception.4 In schools, members of the LGBTQ+ community face a severe lack of acknowledgement in the sexual education and wellness programs. Such classes almost exclusively discuss heterosexual relationships and intimacy and fail to touch upon the possibility that alternate sexualities exist.

Although educational institutions are by and large accepting of students of any sexuality, they have still not taken the necessary steps to ensure

that these students are provided with support and are exposed to others with whom they share an orientation. Studies reveal that 42 percent of gay and lesbian youth seek help from school counseling services. Educational institutions need to be vigilant in ensuring that they have hired individuals willing to extend their services to all students. Aspiring high school counselor Julea Ward was dismissed from the Eastern Michigan State University’s counseling program upon refusing services to a gay client: a direct violation of the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics.5 It is critical that school counselors do not impose their values on students in search of guidance and comfort. The social hierarchy of school is daunting enough without the added stress of being alienated by something over which you have no control, especially by adults meant to provide emotional support. In these environments, homophobia is often the automatic reaction—a phenomenon that can be linked directly to the heteronormative aspect of society. This can be easily addressed by furthering the education of adolescents in the matter, leveling the social playing field for all students. Exposing upcoming generations to the concept that sexuality is fluid won’t ‘‘turn” heterosexuals, contrary to the fear of many conservatives. It will only serve to promote acceptance.

The more we think about it, the more pervasive heteronormativity seems to be within society. It is everywhere—books, movies, media, art, politics, the education system— even hospitals. Activist Janice Langbehn was driven to fight for hospitalization rights after being denied the chance to see her partner Lisa Pond in the intensive care unit after Pond suffered an aneurysm while the family was on vacation. Neither Langbehn nor the couple’s children were provided with updates on Pond’s condition by hospital staff. Langbehn was never granted visitation before Pond fell into a coma and passed away.6 The ability to make medical decisions in the instance that their loved one is incapacitated has also been refused by both treatment centers and biological families, even in cases where the victim has previously stated

their wish for their partner to do so.

Patients themselves can fall victim to discrimination as well. In a national survey conducted by Lambda Legal (an organization committed to the civil rights of LGBTQ+ population), 56 percent of respondents admitted to being subjected to discrimination in one of the following forms: harsh or offensive language, health care professionals refusing to touch them or taking excessive precautionary measures, held at fault for their health status, rough physical handling, or the downright refusal to provide treatment. People in search of medical assistance don’t go to

hospitals in order to be abused and mistreated.

Heteros exual patients are certainly never received in this manner.

Legislature surrounding medical treatment has been modified to prevent such occurrences within the past few years, and yet heterosexual privilege prevails in minute ways that straight people fail to consider.

Case in point, military service is a branch of everyday life in which homosexual people may possess legal protection, but are frequently subject to whims of society in the form of unspoken rules. The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy (DADT) started in 1993 gave LGBTQ+ citizens the right to serve, but forced them to remain closeted for the comfort of others. It was at last repealed in 2011 under the Obama

administration, but service members still find themselves to be governed by tacit rules. While it is no longer legal to discharge a service member on account of sexual orientation, discomfort can still make it extremely difficult to be open with fellow members. This is an inconvenience no heterosexual ever has to endure. They can feel comfortable discussing their spouses and families, knowing they will not be judged. The fact is that sexuality is unrelated to one’s ability to effectively serve the country.

An especially horrific case of heterosexual privilege lies in the “gay panic” defense. A legal defense stance in which “the perpetrator claims that the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity not only explain—but excuse— their loss of self-control and subsequent assault of an LGBTQ individual,” it provides heterosexuals with a scapegoat for their cruelty.7 Essentially, it is the legalization of LGBTQ hate crimes. Presently it can still be used in the courts of 48 states, Illinois and California being the only two to ban its application.8 Members of the LGBTQ+ community have certainly never had the privilege of blaming another’s sexuality for their actions. This defense has created a loophole that has allowed criminals of all kinds to avoid punishment for decades.

Religion and skin color do not excuse malicious behavior, and neither does sexual orientation.

This practice should be outlawed internationally for both the sake of equality and justice.

In the past decade alone, leaps and bounds have been made to prohibit discrimination and equalize people of every sexuality. However, there is still so much work to do. Part of unpacking heterosexual privilege is promoting the awareness of its existence—it is everywhere, all the time. Heterosexual people thrive in a heteronormative environment, but we need to create a society in which everyone can thrive; regardless of whom they love. No one should ever be inhibited by something they cannot control. Members of the LGBTQ+ community are every bit as entitled to the legal rights and social graces that heterosexuals take for granted on a daily basis. Know that if you are society’s definition of normal, you are inherently privileged. Until you realize this, you are part of the problem. Ignorance is only bliss for those in the position to be ignorant.

Mallory, Christy, and Brad Sears. “Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Mississippi.”

Lee, Cynthia. “The Gay Panic Defense.”

3 Cullen, Maura. “Examples of Heterosexual Privilege.” Examples of Heterosexual Privilege.

4 “Mattoon Couple Challenge Denial of Services at Two Illinois Bed and Breakfast Facilities.” ACLU of Illinois, 27 July 2017.

5 “Ward v. Wilbanks Et Al.” American Civil Liberties Union.

6 Riou, Garrett. “Hospital Visitation and Medical Decision Making for Same-Sex Couples.” Center for American Progress, 22 Apr. 2014 7 “GAY AND TRANS PANIC DEFENSE.” Web. 8 Perraudeau, Melissa. Konbini Snapchat Facebook Twitter Instagram In 48 States, Murderers Can Still Plead The ‘Gay Panic Defense’.

1 2

WL | 35

THE DISTRIBUTION OF HEALTH

by Margaret Gillis Illustrated by Margaret Gillis When is the last time you visited your doctor’s office? Maybe you were getting your yearly check-up, or had a bad cough for a week, or even a fever for a couple of days. Either way, it is rarely an amusing experience: you have to spend 30 or so minutes just getting there, then you have to pay for parking, and then you have to wait again to be seen. It is somewhat of an annoyance, especially if you are not currently ill and have to rearrange your schedule just to get some shots or a check-up. However tiresome it might seem, going to the doctor is a privilege most individuals take for granted. In some countries, seeking medical attention is much more difficult. We are lucky to live in a first world country, as we have access to medicine that others don’t.

We all remember being children, waiting in the doctor’s office to receive shots. No matter how much we pleaded or bargained with our parents the outcome did not change. A nurse or doctor still walked through the door with a handful of shots and we left crying, clutching a free sticker. I have a friend who, as a child, kicked her doctor in the shin because he gave a shot to her sister and made her cry. Despite having grown up, this aversion to shots and going to the hospital in general has stayed with us. No one enjoys visiting the doctor, but maybe we should just a little bit more, at least once we realize how lucky we are to be able to.

Why do developing countries have poorer health? Because of their lack of constant clean water sources, sanitation systems, sex education, and nutrition, they are more at risk of developing illnesses. Furthermore, when poorer countries are hit with hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, or other natural disasters, their resources become even less reliable. Their water supplies may become contaminated, their food sources scarce, and their health care facilities debilitated.

Once all this harm has been done, they have no means of getting back on their feet without funds. Such was the case for Haiti, on January 12, 2010. A 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck the island of Hispaniola, desolating hundreds of thousands of buildings, and leaving an estimated 220,000 dead and 300,000 injured.1 In addition to the hurricane’s effects, in October of 2010, there was an outbreak of cholera in Haiti. Cholera is a diarrheal disease caused by an intestinal bacterial infection.

WL | 36

Bacterial infections are much more common in developing countries, as public health laws are more relaxed and there are fewer vaccinations and treatments to ward off the bacteria. There has not been an outbreak of cholera in the U.S. since the 1800s, but it has become a common disease in developing countries.2 Healthcare is different in America.

In Massachusetts, we have the one of the “highest number[s] of physicians per civilian population.”3 In 2016, most Americans, ages 19 to 35, had been vaccinated against measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, polio, chicken pox, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and hepatitis B as children.4 Even before volunteering at a hospital, you have to be tested, sometimes twice, for tuberculosis, a contagious disease caused by a certain bacteria. These are diseases that, in other areas of the world, contribute to a higher infant mortality rate, and lower average life span.

Conversely, developing countries have significantly lower numbers of practicing doctors and have fewer medical resources. There are rarely emergency services available, and the people are left to travel to clinics or even local healers for medical care.5 These local facilities do not have the resources or expertise to deal with serious diseases and conditions, and are therefore not effective enough. Take insulin, for example, a chemical that diabetics need to survive. The World Health Organization lists it as an essential medicine, yet the International Insulin Foundation states that in 41 developing nations (described by the IMF and World Bank as “Highly Indebted Poor Countries”), where 19,000 people have type 1 diabetes, insulin is so unaffordable and unavailable that it poses a serious risk to their health.6 Then comes the issue of emergency medicine.

If you fainted at work and got a concussion, an ambulance would be there in minutes to rush you away to a hospital where you could be treated. This is not the case in many developing countries. Imagine if you lived in a developing country, such as Iran, and your child was born with a life-threatening heart defect. Not only would she need extensive surgery, but she would need immediate transportation to a facility that housed surgeons and could provide surgery. Such was the case for the family of Fatemeh Reshad, a four-month-old Iranian girl who needed heart

surgery last February for a twisted artery. As the family’s lawyer put it, “In Iran there’s a 20 to 30 percent chance of success with surgery…And here [in the U.S.] there’s a 97 percent chance of success.”7 Despite Donald Trump’s travel ban, the family was able to enter the country for Fatemeh’s surgery. However, other families are not as fortunate. Without money or influence, most people living in developing countries are not given the opportunity to receive the firstrate medical attention of developed countries.

Disregarding emergency visits, there are also few instances of routine check-ups and screenings in areas without licensed health care facilities. Many people I know get colonoscopies, prostate exams, or mammograms routinely to allow for early identification of cancer. If not for these tests, cancer could develop, and by the time it is found it could be too late. Prenatal check-ups are also important in pregnancies, to ensure the health of both the mother and child.

These can help identify any problems early on in the pregnancy, such as abnormal growth, birth defects, and potential genetic abnormalities.

These problems can be recognized before the birth takes place to help limit birth complications. With a lack of doctors and licensed health care facilities to carry out these early identification tests, developing populations have a higher risk of early death.

Moreover, because there is a lack of education regarding diseases like cancer, some people in developing countries are not aware that advanced screening can save their lives.

According to a study conducted in Delhi, India with 333 women, “only 185 (56 percent) women were aware of breast cancer; among them, 51 percent knew about at least one of the signs/symptoms, 53 percent were aware that breast cancer can be detected early, and only 35 percent mentioned about risk factors.”8 Without this basic knowledge of the disease, it is no wonder that health care is lacking in developing countries.

Without basic health education, populations might remain unaware that adjusting their diet can improve and prolong their lives. Some of the most important measures a person can take to be healthy are measures that they can take on their own. A doctor might be able to treat you once you become ill, but in the meanwhile, you might be able to prevent illness by exercising,

eating healthy, and avoiding stress.

Not having proper medical education is a main component that drives many diseases exclusive to countries in the developing world.

HIV is one of these diseases. Ninety-five percent of HIV cases exist in developing countries, twothirds of which exist in sub-Saharan Africa.9 Why is this such a high percentage? Barring the obvious reasons that those who have HIV in developing countries do not have access to long-term health facilities that can manage their condition and treat them for a long period, they also do not have access to education regarding their disease. The percentage of HIV cases in these countries could be significantly lowered if sex education were improved in schools. If young adults were taught to wear condoms and were given access to them before sexual encounters, and if there was more access to HIV counselors who could advise those affected about reducing the spread of the disease, there would most likely be a drop in the number of HIV cases.

Believe it or not, some areas of the U.S. also lack this basic education regarding health. Although the U.S. is a “first-world country” and has better health care than most, it has a large health disparity problem.

Even though health care in the U.S. is some of the best in the world, living in the U.S. does not guarantee you access to it. Access to adequate nutrition, safe housing, non-polluted water and air, education, and health insurance all fall under the broad term “health,” and these are sometimes unavailable to the homeless, lowincome, disabled, geographically disadvantaged, and others.10

One of the best indicators of access to health is access to health insurance. With health insurance, one pays a small amount of money regularly to an insurance company to be “covered.” When those who are insured receive healthcare, they pay part of the medical bills while the insurance company pays the rest. Those who are uninsured are faced with mammoth fees; the average cost of an appendectomy (the removal of the appendix) is $33,000.11 Without

insurance, how could the average American hope to afford this? In 2016, an estimated 28.1 million Americans were uninsured, meaning that if they had to visit the doctor, they had to pay out-ofpocket for their care or they couldn’t receive care at all.12 It is unfortunate, but sometimes people choose to not receive treatment rather than be drowned in overwhelming fees.

The U.S. health inequality is also apparent

when viewing documentaries such as “Place at the Table” in which children at an impoverished middle school were asked to identify fruits and vegetables. The children could barely identify half of them, as they had never seen them before. One little boy could not identify the three meals of the day, not only because he didn’t know their names, but because he rarely ate twice in a day, never mind three times. Poor nutrition in childhood translates to poor health later in life. If babies are not given the proper nutrients in their first year of life, the time when they grow the most, they can develop bad eating habits that will follow them the rest of their lives. It is important to realize that there are children, not only in impoverished third world countries, but also a couple towns over from you and me, that are suffering due to insufficient healthcare.

Although it may be a pain, and even though it may take up half of your day, visiting the doctor is not nearly as bothersome once you realize how lucky we are to have health care. It is my opinion that every sick person should receive equal, high-quality medical attention. Even the World Health Organization proclaims “the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being.”13 However, due to health disparities, this right is treated more like a privilege for those who can afford it.

Because of the unequal distribution of wealth around the world, and even within our own nation, not everyone receives adequate care. Some receive no care at all. Therefore, it is important that we value the health care we have and try to make it more accessible to those who do not.

“Haiti Earthquake Facts and Figures.” Disasters Emergency Committee, 1 May 2015.

“Cholera - Vibrio Cholerae Infection.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 7 Nov. 2014.

Laporte, John. “Topic: Physicians.” Www.statista.com.

4 “National Center for Health Statistics.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3 May 2017.

5 Hays, Jeffrey. “HEALTH CARE IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD (THIRD WORLD).” Facts and Details.

6 “FAQs.” International Insulin Foundation, International Insulin Foundation.

7 Yuhas, Alan. “Iranian Baby Girl in Need of Heart Surgery Gets Waiver to Enter US after Travel Ban.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 3 Feb. 2017.

8 Somdatta, P, and N Baridalyne. “Awareness of Breast Cancer in Women of an Urban Resettlement Colony.” Indian Journal of Cancer., U.S. National Library of Medicine.

9 “HIV / AIDS.” WHO, World Health Organization.

10 “Disparities.” Disparities | Healthy People 2020, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

11 Castillo, Michelle. “Cost of an Appendectomy? Reddit User Posts $55,000 Bill.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 2 Jan. 2014.

12 Jessica C. Barnett and Edward R. Berchick. “Library.” Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016, United States Census Bureau, 12 Sept. 2017.

13 “Human Rights and Health.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization.

1 2 3

WL | 37

PEARLY-WHITE PRIVILEGE

by Luana Melo Illustrated by Rixy Fernandez

As a child I always loved going to the dentist.

It was never complicated. My mom would make me an appointment, drive me to the office, and I would try to keep my mouth open wide enough.

As time went by, I would call in to make my own appointments, and drive there myself and just like when I was a child—that’s all there was to it.

I have been lucky enough to not only be under my parent’s insurance but to have them pay for any out-of-pocket expenses as well. It was never something we couldn’t afford, we

WL | 38

never had to delay treatment due to financial reasons, and, aside from a few snide remarks about my braces, no one ever made fun of my teeth.

I have been privileged to have good oral health care, not just in comparison to those in developing countries but to the everyday American as well. It is a well-known fact that a perfectly straight, pearly-white smile is not just an American beauty standard but an American expectation. When I was in high school, a peer,

who I will call Joey for this article, ended up losing a few teeth: some in a fight and some due to infection. No one in my high school said much about it to his face, but it was all people talked about all summer in quiet whispers as soon as he left the room.

I remember thinking that I wouldn’t know what to do with myself if I ever lost a tooth like he did, not because it would be painful, but because I would be ugly. I could tell from my peer’s reactions that teeth mattered. I didn’t

think about why or if it was fair, but I became cautious—after all, I didn’t want to end up like Joey.

This mentality does not just belong to the people in my hometown. In a perception study created by Kelton Research in 2012, it was found that 38 percent of Americans would “rule out a second date with someone with misaligned teeth,” and that people with straight teeth are “38 percent more likely to be perceived as smart.”

I never asked Joey how he felt that summer he spent with five missing teeth and hushed, haunting whispers, but I can imagine his selfesteem must have taken a hit. I imagine any American with a less-than-perfect smile would take a few hits to their self-esteem.

Why would teeth affect self-esteem? The answer to that question stems from a deeplyrooted American perspective. In “Why is America Obsessed with Perfecting its Teeth?” Dan Lee utilized the expression “whiteness on a crooked smile is like lipstick on a pig” when discussing the American perspective on teeth. This sets out a general sense of the American mentality that the endpoint of a smile is to achieve uniformity. Lee goes on to say that in America those considered beautiful are those who are “standard bearers.”

Those who do not bear the standard, like those with crooked, yellowed teeth, are not supposed to be “beautiful” because they don’t fit the standard. This is what children are taught, what television teaches them, and what adults in workplaces and schools perpetuate. Imagine you do not have a perfect smile. You are very self-conscious about it because you’ve been taught that you are not beautiful because of it. You try to date anyway, and you can’t get a second date because of your teeth. You blame yourself—you’re inadequate, undesirable, and you continue to be deprived of normal, healthy, and human activities.

Having discolored teeth or a crooked smile can have emotional repercussions. There is bullying and a lack of social acceptance toward those with imperfect teeth which can severely impact self-esteem. One of my close friends growing up had a snaggletooth and she would get “lightheartedly” made fun for it often: sometimes mean insults, sometimes just a backhanded mention of it. I remember she hated it and she got braces before anyone else in my middle school. Her snaggletooth was gone

and so was the teasing.

When it comes to bullying, though, no one wins. If you have imperfect teeth, remarks might be made. Even with corrective measures in place remarks can still be made, like telling people with braces they have “train tracks.” But how are middle school children supposed to know any better? There is no representation in the media; even poor characters on television are portrayed with perfect smiles. All of the adults they know have close to perfect teeth. So, when they see imperfect teeth it’s different, it’s “weird,” and no one is telling them that it’s normal as an unfortunate result of poverty.

One thing that’s certain is that a perfect smile is a must for Americans, and for that oral health care is paramount. If teeth are so important and impactful then why don’t people just have their teeth fixed?

insurance is Obamacare, which hasn’t helped older populations because only children’s oral health care is covered.

The people lacking this essential oral health care are disproportionately the poor and subsequently racial minorities. In a New York Times article called “The Tooth Divide: Beauty, Class and the Story of Dentistry,” Sarah Jaffee stated that one third of white children go without care while half of black and Hispanic children go without care. Oral health care follows a cycle where people with bad teeth cannot get jobs or opportunities; with no jobs they are poor, and poor people cannot access or afford health care, and so on.

Imagine someone who is under the federal poverty line. They can’t get even an entry level job that requires a lot of smiling and socialization if they have imperfect teeth. They have no job, so they can’t save up for dental care, so they apply for public aid and it still is not enough because they can’t make the out-of-pocket payments. When they get a tooth ache or infection, they can’t treat it, so it only gets worse and poor teeth become poorer—a cycle for the poor and racially marginalized that they can’t escape from, no redemption.

In her article “Poor Teeth,” Smarsh even went as far as to say “if you have a mouthful of teeth shaped by childhood in poverty, don’t go knocking on the door of American Privilege.”

I hope we can all agree that the oral health disparity in the United States is saddening and heartbreaking. This begs the question of what can we do as people in non-political positions to help ease that disparity. The truth is I do not know. There isn’t a petition I found on Google, nor a bill I could call my local politician about, and there isn’t one simple, singular action.

I believe the first step is being aware of the disparity. Help ease the stigma of imperfect teeth, help erase the misconceptions that all imperfections are a source of internal failure, and spread awareness. Educate peers who are not knowledgeable, call out problematic remarks made, and set an example to be followed. After all, it is like François de la Rochefoucauld once said: “Nothing is so contagious as example.”

Having discolored teeth or a crooked smile can have emotional repercussions. There is bullying and a lack of social acceptance toward those with imperfect teeth which can severely impact self-esteem.

Unfortunately, oral health care isn’t accessible or affordable to every American in the same way. According to the United States National Association of Dental Plans, “more than 126 million people in the U.S., nearly half the population, had no dental coverage in 2012.”

Even when people have access to an insurance plan, it is not unusual for most plans to only cover annual cleanings. They can also require out of pocket payment for around 20 to 50 percent of the cost of fillings, crowns, and other dental work.

There are public insurance plans, such as Medicaid and Obamacare, which are in place to help those without access to insurance through job benefits or private insurance. Sarah Smarsh identified one of the issues with Medicaid: “Few dentists participate in the program due to its low payout.” On the Families USA website, it states that “nearly 49 million people in the U.S. have trouble finding a dental provider and 45 million have no dental insurance at all.” Another public

WL | 39

WL | 40

CIVILIZED

by Drew Oakley Illustrated by Brianna Nguyen

We are civilized At least that’s the lie devised Take a look with real eyes Thousands of years of conquests and slavery The world killing each other is known as bravery To both sides misery Lacking the discovery That everyone wants to be happy Fighting over ancient animal remains Leaving blood stains The blood leaks over time frames Each generation born to hate another They think they are clever Rich men are never pulling the trigger But my friends family used to be slaves and called a nig**r What is war?

But rich men sending out the poor To fight for them while they hide at another shore Killing for peace is like fucking for virginity Always hiding behind some form of divinity Whether it’s religion or skin tone it doesn’t matter actually As long as they are seen as different in your reality But it’s innocent people who end up as a casualty While rich men talk about war like a game so casually Destroying our habitat like it’s fun Rich men are the ones funding every gun The ones starting each war because they need everything under the sun But help for the people I see none

They don’t want us educated Nothing’s an accident like how people were segregated Running through places the savages demonstrated There’s never been a problem with slavery or if a people are genocided Maybe if the poor could think they would get out But they place guns and alcohol on every route No money for the poor but they have money for war Tupac would shout Why is there no money for education? What’s that all about?

People hate each other for skin tone No country is alone Throughout history this savage nature is written in stone We think as educated life we are all alone But we are the savages if you think instead of believing what you are shown We have technology But historically It’s been been 50 years since we segregated any minority Only a few hundred years since slavery There hasn’t been a time without violence in our worlds history Just killing and misery The technology gets more advanced but we do the same things societally No ones think intelligently We say we are alone and it’s some great mystery While we are surrounded by intelligent creature and plants we kill in this tragedy No life will be left if we continue our savagery When will we see that all life wants to be happy just like you and me World peace? When will that be?

Only when we change what we chose to see.

WL | 41

A LOOK AT PRIVILEGE Interview by Kellie Ruccolo & Samuel O’Neill Illustrated by Meaghan Sarno

After meeting at a peer mentor training in Sept. 2017, we thought it would be a great idea to talk Dr. Karen Suyemoto, a UMass Boston professor, about her perspective on privilege because this is something she deals with in her work everyday. She is a professor of psychology with expertise in Clinical Psychology, Asian American Studies, relations of racism to mental health, empowerment and resisting racism, and community and educational initiatives for social justice. She identifies as a multiracial, Asian American woman. In this interview, she talked to us about the impact of privilege.

K – Can you define privilege in your own words?

I use privilege in the context of power, privilege, and oppression. And so, kind of thinking about inequity or access to resources, access to justice.

For me, in order to define privilege well, I would first need to define power.

Power is really the ability to influence an outcome for yourself or for somebody else.

People talk about power, sometimes it’s power and privilege and sometimes that leads people to think that it’s bad to have power, but we all want power. We all want to be able to influence things in whatever way we feel is for the good, even if it’s for advocating for social justice, it’s using power. Using your power to try to affect a particular thing.

So privilege is essentially unearned power.

Power that is afforded to you based on your status and not on your merit. It’s power that you have not earned, that you have done nothing to have. And usually, systemically, privilege is the flip side of oppression. So if you have unearned power, then somebody else doesn’t have that power.

Peggy MacIntosh talks about, and I talked about this a little bit in the training, the difference between positive advantages and negative advantages. There is privilege that is a positive advantage. In other words, the standard example in my experience is you don’t get followed around in a store just because you aren’t white. Respect. Basic respect. And when you have that basic respect, you then have access to power in a particular way. But those advantages are things that everybody s h o u l d have. Some people don’t have them, so it’s still privilege, it’s still unearned power, or unearned advantage. But it’s something that should be spread to everybody,

WL | 42

not something that should be erratic.

Then there’s privilege that exists only at the active cost of oppression of someone else.

And so that shouldn’t be spread because then somebody else is just going to be oppressed.

And in that case, you want to try to get rid of it.

That might be, for example, the 1%. The 1% can only exist if others are working for them to make them money, and are not making a living wage or profiting in the same way from their own work. The obliviousness to race, the privilege of white fragility and of white ignorance only exists because people of color carry the burden of racism, and white people choose not to.

S – There’s lately been sort of a hyper vigilance to recognizing privilege and making sure that people “check their privilege.” But [would] the ultimate goal of social activism as it relates to privilege be to get people who are privileged to utilize that privilege in a meaningful way?

No. Not for me. The ultimate goal would be for there not to be a need to deploy privilege because it didn’t exist. The interim goal would be to get people to use their privilege. Maybe.

It depends on what you mean by use your privilege.

There are all kinds of things in that question that I would like to unpack. Is there indeed a hyper vigilance about privilege? Or is there a demand for a greater recognition that privilege exists and that inequities exist that go with it? That [the demand for greater recognition] is experienced by people who have privilege, including the privilege to not see it, as hyper vigilance.

I don’t experience the current discourse about privilege as hyper vigilance.

I experience it as: “Oh, yeah, well, that’s life.”

I’m constantly aware of, say, the difference in race privilege. And then somebody says, “Well, you’re being ‘PC’” or “Why do we have to be so hyper vigilant?” And it’s almost never a person of color who’s saying why do we have to be so hyper vigilant about privilege. A person of color isn’t hyper vigilant about privilege, they’re hyper

vigilant about oppression because the cost of oppression—and its flipside privilege—is very, very high. So the only way you can say talking about privilege or talking about oppression, that we’re getting too caught up in that, that’s essentially an argument that says we shouldn’t have to pay attention to the inequity that exists in our society.

I think the demands to check your privilege—I don’t think they’re working. I’m not really sure what that means. I think sometimes it’s like check your privilege—does that mean look at your privilege? Be aware of it? Or does it mean don’t be privileged? Because there’s no real way you can not be privileged. Privilege is not something you choose to have. You may take it for granted. Or is it some interaction of that? Sorry, that was a bit of a tangent. But it’s an interesting question. What was the end of the question? Because there was actually a question in there.

S – The main part of the question is, and you were sort of touching on it, what would your recommendations be for managing discourse between peoples or groups of differing levels of privilege?

So that’s a totally different question. The question you asked earlier was: Is the goal to get people with privilege to use their privilege?

I think the goal is to get people with privilege to understand that there is privilege. In my experience, not seeing privilege maintains it, which maintains inequity and oppression in the long term. This indirectly relates to the discourse question. So, I’m going to talk about race, acknowledging that race is not the only system of privilege, but it is the system I teach the most about, I research, and that kind of thing. I’m going to talk about race because that’s where I’m most knowledgeable.

When a white person doesn’t see their privilege, and a person of color very clearly sees their [the white person’s] privilege, you’re living in two different worlds. And so another reason to actually address it, engage it, encourage people to see it, is so that we can actually have genuine relationships with each other. Because the system of privilege, the system of racism, the ways in which we are socialized to be biased,

keeps us from actually having relationships that actually understand each other, that have deep empathy, that are able to take the perspective of the other, and even from knowing about each other. People of color know much more about white people and white people’s perspective and views than white people tend to know about people of color’s perspective and views, and that’s part of privilege, that the dominant narrative and experience is white. I teach students regularly who don’t have a clue what the experience is of a person of color. So there’s something to be said about that. There’s something sad about that individually, interpersonally, socially. I think there are reasons to try to encourage the engagement with privilege in order to encourage the engagement with inequity so that we can change it on both sides.

How you manage the discourse partly depends on the strategies you [use] as a teacher or as a trainer and a discussion facilitator, [and] relate[s] a lot to the goals you have and the population that you’re interacting with. So, the ways in which I might interact with or teach a group that is primarily white versus teaching a group that is primarily people of color are different because the knowledge they come in [with], the sensitivity, the perspective taking, the pain, the emotional thing that needs to be negotiated, are different for those groups. When you’re talking about privilege or race or racism with white people, most of the time—not always, but most of the time—I’m interacting with well-intentioned white people who really want justice in the world. I’m not interacting with the KKK. And [people] have been socialized—the research in psychology suggests we have been socialized—to be racially biased, and we have internalized that. Well intentioned white people have internalized racial bias as what’s called aversive racism or unconscious racism; racism that they don’t want to have, that they would like to believe is not present. How do you engage that? How do you help people see something that challenges their own view of themselves as a good person? That challenges the ways that they might have been educated to be fair and just, and one of the emotions that brings up tends to be guilt, anxiety, fear. Some pretty deep discomfort.

Helping white students or white people manage those emotions is part of the discourse and managing the discourse.

For people of color, it then also becomes a question of are we talking about a dialogue with a mixed group—like are there white people in this room?—or is it just people of color? Because that actually changes the way it’s talked about.

Because even if it’s well-intentioned white people in the room, people of color come in with a lot of different experiences of both direct

and explicit racism and indirect racism. If I am going to sit down with you and say, “Hey, let’s chat,” there’s a way in which it’s like what kind of knowledge do you have? Where are you at? It’s an everyday kind of thing, particularly for me because it’s what I study. People will say, “What do you study?” So I tell them, “I study racism.”

I said this in the training: people stop talking to me. White people stop talking to me. People of color are like, “Really? How interesting.” It’s such a basic difference. “I don’t wanna talk about that.” Okay, so, there’s something going on there psychologically.

The aspects of managing an interaction about privilege is really an understanding: where are there sore points? What is carried into the room or carried into the conversation?

And then the goal. What’s your goal? What’s the context you’re asking? How do I manage the discourse in a classroom? With what kind of people? With what kind of group? How do I manage a discourse in a training? With what kind of people? With what kind of group? How do I manage it personally? With my partner who’s a white, straight, privileged male? Because I do manage it with my partner. It permeates everything. My partner Eric [a cis, white man] knows that he’s such an example in my teaching, that he’s like, “Oh, what’d you tell them about me today?” Because it really brings research pieces to life. I don’t know if that answered your question.

S – I think it did. It’s entirely contextual, the way you have to manage discourse.

Yes. I think there are some major themes.

One major theme is if you’re working from the people of color aspect, you have to understand the deep pain of racism. That it’s not abstract, it’s not a general concept, and it’s painful to sit in a room and talk about racism. It is painful to have those things that you try really hard to contain triggered. It is painful to have a white person say something that negates your reality without even realizing that they’re saying it. When you have dialogues about racial privilege with people of color or with people who don’t have privilege, you have to realize that the flip side of privilege is oppression, and oppression is deeply painful.

From the privileged side there, there’s usually a theme of ignorance, well intention, and fear.

All of which are also related to the aspect of being taught not to see this. Really being taught not to engage it, not see it. There’s an unlearning process, and that unlearning process is also painful. It’s an interesting kind of thing because a large part of my life is like causing people pain.

Because engaging privilege is painful, whether you’re oppressed or you’re privileged.

K – As someone who works in psychology, can you say a few words on the psychological

impact that oppression has on people?

Yeah, sure. Can we talk also about the psychological impact of privilege?

K – Sure.

So, for example, for people of color racism relates to higher anxiety, depression, higher life stress, low self-esteem, and that’s kind of at the individual psychological level. At the more systemic level, like inequities in housing, inequities in education access. When you think about the impact relationally, or for the society, that’s a huge loss of resources, of intellect, of ability, of creativity, all of those things, right?

Where would we be, if people of color could have been educated, college educated, from the very beginning? What might we have discovered?

What scientific advances might we have made?

If you just think about how so much was lost, [this is] the psychological impact of relational racism, or discrimination.

And then the other piece is the internalization—the belief that your group is less worthy, less successful. The belief that you are unsuccessful. Issues of self-esteem, issues of body image, those types of things. Some of the classic studies, like the Clark Doll Study [which is] a pretty good example of that. There’s a pretty robust body of literature that suggests that the experience of oppression, whether it is interpersonal, or through media, or messages about your group, causes psychological difficulty. And physical, high blood pressure, for example, and relational disconnections.

Social distance, like “I’m not comfortable with that person,” you know, those kinds of things.

But segregation is usually driven more from the privilege that is then enacted. Although there is also self-segregation for connection and survival that people of color or other minorities enact given the system that exists.

Recently, racism is looking much more aversive, or much more unconscious. So the aspect of bias that is unconscious and then is explained as something other than bias. In the training we do, I talked a little bit about Dovidio’s work but I don’t know if I talked about the particular study where they were pairing black people and white people, and white people were either adversively racist, racist, or nonracist. And actually [the pairings where] the white people who thought they weren’t racist [but were unconsciously racist], with the black partner, were the least efficient and effective pair. So it’s like: “I [a person of color] would rather deal with a white racist than a white person who thinks they’re not racist but is still enacting it.” But a piece of that study also found that the white people in that pair thought that they had a good relationship and a good rapport with the black person. The black people in that

WL | 43

study didn’t. Which is a really good example of how you can have the same experience, and share an experience, and have radically different views of it. For white people, I think there is a weird kind of cognitive dissonance that has to be maintained. And so I wonder, I have not seen a lot of studies on this, but I wonder how much energy it takes to maintain that. It’s interesting because it takes a good amount of energy to challenge it, because it is so dominant. But a well intentioned white person is maintaining a view that all people are equal, and that their worth is based on merit, while being surrounded by lots and lots of instances of inequity. So how does that work? How do we do that? I mean, that is not my area, but it’s a question I’ve thought about.

S – By your view, what can people do to be more aware of their privilege, and also utilize their privilege in a meaningful way? I would also like to add on, how do you think that people who fail or refuse to recognize that privilege and race are still issues, should be approached in terms of discourse?

You know, as a person of color, my answer to that is I don’t. And that’s partly because it’s just too painful. But the bigger answer, and the bigger reason for me, actually it’s not the bigger reason, but an equally good reason for me, is that I have limited time and energy. I am not interested in spending my time and energy banging my head against a wall. I mean, I’d rather talk with you all. With folks who might actually think about it, and move it, and become leaders to shift it, than with people who are like, “I don’t believe you.”

I’m like “Fine.” And it’s particularly the case that they’re not going to believe me [as a person of color]. They’re much more likely to believe you [as a white person]. And so I would rather talk to you so that you can go talk to them. Because that is ultimately how I think change will happen. I think the biggest thing about people who have privilege, and how you engage your privilege, is not what sometimes people think, “Well, you know, I’m privileged and so I should use my privilege for the good,” and what that means is I should help the people who are oppressed. And I actually think one of the biggest tasks of the privileged, who understand their privilege, is to work with other people who are privileged to help them understand their privilege the relation of that to oppression. People of color have a lot of skills and strengths and resiliencies to address in their internal aspects. But white people have access to white people that people of color don’t.

White people say things to other white people that they don’t say when people of color are around. As somebody who has also studied multiraciality a bit, you hear this, particularly from some multiracial folks, who will be like: “They thought I was white, and I can’t believe what they said.” So I think there’s an aspect of having people understand what can people do, I think that you can work to understand your privilege.

Get out of your bubble. Listen, read, hang out with people who are different than you.

Particularly people that, if you are a person with privilege, hang out with people who have less privilege than you. Now, there are probably people who are more privileged than you, right, but you probably know about those people because that’s the way privilege works. If you are white, and I code you both as white, yes?

K & S – Yes. If you are white and also working class, or you are white and gay, [or] you are white and a woman, you have an oppressed status. You have something that has a privilege system associated with it. But, you also have race privilege. As a woman, I code you as a woman?

K – Yes. You probably know a good amount of male privilege, and what men have that you don’t have, and how men enact their privilege, and all of those things. You probably know more about that than white privilege, unless you’ve actually spent some time, because that’s the way that privilege works. And so, I would encourage white people to hang out with people of color, and not just individuals, but to actually get out of their bubble. To go hang out in spaces that tend to make white people uncomfortable, because all of a sudden, they’re not with white people.

I think really thinking about what the dialogue can be with other white people, and not necessarily with people of color. And realizing that action to shift privilege from a privileged space [with/for those who are oppressed] runs the risk of being paternalistic, of reenacting privilege dynamics as opposed to undermining them.

And I think to realize that it’s not easy. I think sometimes what happens is, well-intentioned people with privilege are like “I want to contribute to social justice,” and then it’s hard.

And it’s hard sometimes because, I mean it’s hard in general, and it’s also hard I think when people of color don’t appreciate. And that might mean a person of color calling you out. Like you’re a

white person, you’re working on your privilege, you’re working really hard, and you make a mistake, because we all make mistakes when we’re doing this work. And I, a person of color, say “Hey, you did this thing and I really think it’s because you’re white and it hurt me.” But my point is, so you and I have that conversation and you’re like “Shit, who are you to do that?” and [you’re thinking] “I’m doing this for you.” But that’s not a good reason to do it.

I guess, two things to end, because I think these are two really really important things. One is to realize that, if you [as a White person] and I [as a person of color] have that conversation, I trust you in a way that I don’t trust most people.

That that conversation itself is a gift. It’s a gift where I’m saying to you “I’m going to share with you the pain that I don’t usually share with people who aren’t sharing my oppression space.”

I’m going to give you a little view into what that’s like for me, and I also trust you enough to not package it well, not to make it sound pretty or make you comfortable. I’m not going to try to hold your white angst about it; instead, I’m going to be hurt, or I’m going to be mad, I’m going to be how I genuinely feel. And while that might feel really bad to you, in a weird kind of way, that is a moment where I really trust you, I trust you enough to have that moment of honesty and believe that we can come back and stay related in that moment, that we can work this out. The second thing I want to end with is: don’t do it for people of color—that’s the other big thing. If you are in a privileged space and you are working to understand your privilege, address your privilege, use your privilege as an ally, as someone who tries to challenge the system of privilege, as soon as you fall into “I’m doing it for the poor oppressed,” you fall into paternalism, and you fall into that idea that you have to have the validation and the thankfulness of the people who are being oppressed. But as soon as you do that, you’re part of the system now, because you’re expecting somebody to be thankful for your doing something other than oppressing them. You do it because it’s the right thing to do. You do it because you want a genuine relationship. You do it because you want your kids to have a better world that can take advantage of all of the expertise and possibilities of all of the human beings in the world. You do it for those reasons, you don’t do it because somebody else who is oppressed is going to appreciate the fact that you’re not oppressing them.

The people who can most easily recognize privilege are those who don’t have it. If you think the idea of privilege is silly, or race isn’t an issue in America anymore, or inequality is the result of certain people not working hard enough, it’s likely that you’re far more privileged than you know. Just because you don’t have to contend with a certain obstacle, that does not mean that other people don’t have to either. Put yourself in someone else’s shoes, make friends of people who are different from you, open your mind to new ways of thinking, make allies, build bonds, and fight for a day when we’re all just human.

WL | 44

University of Massachusetts Boston 100 Morrissey Boulevard Boston, MA 02125