Tiger Sun – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com Breaking news from the Farm since 1892 Thu, 06 Oct 2022 22:29:23 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://stanforddaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cropped-DailyIcon-CardinalRed.png?w=32 Tiger Sun – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com 32 32 204779320 The inhumanity of US immigration control https://stanforddaily.com/2018/06/07/the-inhumanity-of-us-immigration-control/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/06/07/the-inhumanity-of-us-immigration-control/#respond Thu, 07 Jun 2018 12:00:06 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1142035 1,475 kids. That’s how many immigrant children immigration control lost last year. Granted, the Department of Human and Health Services (HHS), which works closely with ICE, has stated they have “lost track” of them, which doesn’t necessarily mean the kids are lost, but that’s a worrisome number. How many of these kids could be in […]

The post The inhumanity of US immigration control appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
1,475 kids. That’s how many immigrant children immigration control lost last year. Granted, the Department of Human and Health Services (HHS), which works closely with ICE, has stated they have “lost track” of them, which doesn’t necessarily mean the kids are lost, but that’s a worrisome number. How many of these kids could be in grave danger right now? How many have been taken by traffickers?
These children were seized at the border, unaccompanied by adults, and sent to live with “sponsors.” Most of these sponsors are family members, but also many are not. Additionally, the sponsors of some of the 1,475 lost children may not have responded to HHS’s follow-up calls. However, 1,475 is still a large number of people for HHS to have no idea about their whereabouts. Furthermore, the attitude of the Department of Human and Health Services has towards this entire situation is problematic. They claim it’s not their “responsibility” to have to keep track of these kids, but shouldn’t it be basic humanity to make sure children you’re handing to potential strangers are safe and well? These kids deserve safety.

This has undertones similar to what happened in 2014, when detained kids were literally trafficked into slavery in the US. Guatemalan children who made the long journey north were stopped at the border by immigration control and shipped off to shady “sponsors” (who were accomplices of a smuggler) and then corporations as cheap labor.  At Trillium Farms, this scheme was finally discovered, but this is no isolated case. A PBS documentary detailed the stories of those Guatemalan children and has discovered similar plots around the United States. It’s chilling to think how many children’s lives HHS has just thrown around with no regard for their safety.

ICE and HHS are both in charge of immigration control, and yet, both have very troublesome attitudes towards unauthorized immigrants. Just in general, ICE agents seem to have very little care for the lives of those immigrants. A group called No More Deaths sets out water for immigrants in the desert – however, a video revealed ICE officers cruelly sabotaging these jugs of water, such as kicking them and emptying them out, even when the government explicitly tells them not to. This water could save lives, but ICE doesn’t seem to care. A quote from a migrant states “I needed water, some of the other people in the group needed water, but we found them destroyed. [I felt] helplessness, rage. They must hate us. It’s their work to capture us, but we are humans. And they don’t treat us like humans … They break the bottles out of hate.” ICE even cracked the jugs to the point where they were unusable so migrants couldn’t reuse them at water filling stations. So much for “Give me your tired, your poor.”

ICE clearly does not view or treat migrants as humans. As another deterrent, senior border enforcement officials have proposed separating children from parents if caught. There is almost no reason for the government to purposefully split apart families fleeing violence and bad conditions in their own countries. This is incredibly inhumane, and knowing the previous issues ICE has had with keeping track of kids, many of these kids are as good as gone.

These people have very real reasons to leave their countries – no one decides to pack up their bags and leave everything they’ve ever known behind to face an uncertain future on a whim. Using people’s own children as objects of “deterrence” is undeniably uncalled for. On Twitter, a father’s heartbreaking statement was released as he was wrenched from his son: “My son was crying as I put him in the seat. I did not even have a chance to try to comfort my son, because the officers slammed the door shut as soon as he was in his seat. I was cry, too. I cry even now when I think about that moment when the border officers took my son away.”

Finally, detention centers are essentially prisons with terrible living conditions. In addition to spoiled food, no access to medical support, and barely working bathrooms, detainees are also pretty much forced to work for pennies, by the Corrections Corporations of America (CCA), which coincidentally also runs the for-profit prison industry (you can read about my thoughts on for-profit prisons here). The work is apparently “voluntary” but detention officials threaten these asylum seekers that don’t decide to work that they’d weaken their asylum cases in front of the judge. This is modern slavery in that ICE is forcing people against their will to work for free with severe punishments if they refuse. These people deserve to be treated like human beings – they are trying to escape oppression, not subject themselves to more of it.

ICE regularly harrasses people living in the United States who are doing no harm. Through raids and arrests, even the most law-abiding unauthorized immigrants are deported. There have been stories of people awaiting green card or visa status deported as they make routine visits to ICE offices. Of course, there’s always the argument of “well, they’re here illegally so they need to be punished,” but why though? If they’re living normal lives and not hurting anyone else, they’re essentially adding value and contributing to society, which should be a goal of any citizen. People will always try to point to immigrants not paying taxes as a reason to kick them out, but research shows that illegal immigrants do pay a good amount of taxes, even paying for things they can’t use like Medicaid and social security. Even then, deportations are extremely costly for America, and there are many possible unintended consequences, such as the weakening of the agriculture industry.

Border security definitely has pros and cons but one thing is certain – immigration control needs to be changed. Based on their actions, it seems the entire attitude of the immigration regulation agencies is one built on the assumption that asylum seekers/immigrants are subhuman. This is unacceptable for a government agency, and unfair for the people risking their lives for a shot at escaping the problems of their home country. If we want to control illegal immigration, we need to do so in a humane and respectful way; for example, not sending undocumented children to labor camps or forcing asylum-seekers to basically work for pennies in a for-profit prison.

Contact Tiger Sun at tgsun ‘at’ stanford.edu.

 

The post The inhumanity of US immigration control appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/06/07/the-inhumanity-of-us-immigration-control/feed/ 0 1142035
Being homeless is not a crime https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/23/is-being-homeless-a-crime/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/23/is-being-homeless-a-crime/#respond Wed, 23 May 2018 12:00:02 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1142496 Tiger Sun argues that we need to consider the homeless as people with basic human needs and rights, and treat them as such, rather than trying to hide the problem from ourselves.

The post Being homeless is not a crime appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Skid Row. A failed experiment in the “containment” of poverty. The location of one of America’s largest unsheltered populations. Hopelessness swells amidst the backdrop of Los Angeles, one of America’s most glamorous cities. Every night, over 55,000 homeless people in the city sleep in shelters and the streets, without a place to call home. It’s a travesty that so many people have to live without basic amenities, especially in such a “progressive” city. There are nine bathrooms for the approximately 1,800 people that live in the surrounding streets of Skid Row. This comes years after the Los Angeles city government actively hauled away bathrooms meant for use by the homeless while shutting down shelters.

This problem isn’t limited just to Los Angeles. New York, Seattle, San Diego and Washington D.C., some of the nation’s largest cities, also have large homeless populations. There needs to be more done to address the health and societal issues within homeless populations — the public perception of homeless needs to change. Instead of seeing the homeless as a public nuisance that should be hidden or made invisible, we as a society need to recognize that the homeless are people with basic human needs. We must address the growing homelessness crisis as soon as possible. Los Angeles is just now pumping funding into improved infrastructure, shelters and bathrooms for the homeless, and it may be too late, as cost of living increases trap the homeless in a vicious cycle of poverty.

The homelessness crisis isn’t a problem that can be swept under the rug. It is a serious problem with serious implications for the health of those living on the streets.

Living in unsanitary conditions with limited access to medical attention, it’s not a surprise that mental health is a massive problem among homeless populations. There are too many instances of patients just being dumped back onto the streets after receiving brief, short-term treatment at a hospital. Knowingly discharging a homeless patient back onto the streets, known as “patient dumping,” does very little to help in the long-term — it is common for patients to relapse and end up back at the same hospital a few days later. An audit of the Department of Public Health’s Behavioral Health Services stated “Linking these clients to services on discharge is important, because without service linkage, these clients are at risk of not only decompensating mentally, but of also resorting to alcohol and substance abuse after being discharged,” and Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness, said that “[Hospitals] need to do whatever they can to find a place for them.”

In an extreme version of patient dumping, Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital in Las Vegas in Las Vegas was literally bussing patients all over the continental United States to states patients had no relation to. This is unacceptable in so many ways. The lack of regard for human life is unbelievable. People at a psychiatric hospital obviously need help — shipping them off in a Greyhound bus to somewhere completely new is horrible and inhumane. What kind of message does that send about mental health and the homeless? In a heartbreaking case, James Flavy Coy Brown, a man with schizophrenia and depression, was bussed from Las Vegas to Sacramento, a place where he had never been before and knew no one. The hospital didn’t even bother to check whether he had a place to stay or if he had medication. Brown was found in the UC Davis Medical Center emergency room, and, in a happy ending, was reunited with his daughter with help from Sacramento officials. However, though this story has a happy ending, what happened to the other hundreds of patients bussed out to an unknown land, cast away from an institution meant to help them through their troubles?

Perhaps this isn’t the fault of the hospitals. After all, hospitals must operate with a budget too, and it can be too much of a financial burden on hospitals to care for so many ailing patients, especially so many without insurance. In this case, the burden should fall on the local and state governments to secure ample funding for the hospitals so things like this should not happen.

Simply bussing the homeless to somewhere else will not solve the root issue. Cities seem more concerned with hiding the issue than actually addressing it. For example, hostile architecture such as anti-homeless spikes and benches do absolutely nothing to solve the growing problem. Though more predominant in England, this aggressive trend is also popping up in the United States. For example, the Seattle Department of Transportation inserted bike racks under a bridge partially to stop “unsheltered living” in a quite blatant anti-homeless statement. In Philadelphia, benches are intentionally uncomfortable to preclude homeless from sleeping there for the night, and in Charlottesville, Virginia, benches were removed from parks to prevent loitering and panhandling.

In addition, the law is also against the homeless — in some cities it’s literally illegal to be homeless. In many cities, people are not allowed to camp outside at night. For example, in Santa Cruz, even sleeping in vehicles is illegal, as well as outdoor shelters, even though surveys have shown that over 80 percent of homeless don’t have access to housing or shelter anyway. There is no reason to criminalize homelessness. Studies mentioned by CNN have shown that it costs way more money to enforce these anti-homelessness laws; for example, a study from Creative Housing Solutions notes that Central Florida could save $149 million by providing permanent housing to the homeless. The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP) also did a study on city laws and found that cities are increasingly cracking down on the homeless.

Hostile architecture and criminalization only seek amplify the cycle of homelessness. Arresting and penalizing the homeless simply for being poor does nothing to solve the problem. If a person is in trouble for not being able to pay a fine or afford a necessity, what good will come from fining them again? Even though fines may be small in value, as the number of fines accumulates, it can be crushing, especially for someone trying to make it off the streets. Instead, governments should create policy to address the real issues behind homelessness, namely gentrification and a lack of affordable housing. Though I won’t go too much into detail within this article, gentrification generally refers to the displacement of poorer tenants in a neighborhood by wealthier people, who often change the entire landscape and culture of the area. In some ways, gentrification can be good, but what often happens is that those displaced by gentrification are forgotten and end up much worse.

Governments need to invest in better infrastructure and more affordable housing before it’s too late; if else, the plight of the most vulnerable will only get worse.

 

Contact Tiger Sun at tgsun ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Being homeless is not a crime appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/23/is-being-homeless-a-crime/feed/ 0 1142496
Who protects us from the police? https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/10/who-protects-us-from-the-police/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/10/who-protects-us-from-the-police/#respond Thu, 10 May 2018 12:00:08 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1140785 “You know 30 years ago we were skinheads. We wore swastikas and shaved heads, and you could identify us pretty easily. So we decided at that time to grow our hair out, to trade in our boots for suits and we encouraged people to get jobs in law enforcement, to go to the military and […]

The post Who protects us from the police? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
“You know 30 years ago we were skinheads. We wore swastikas and shaved heads, and you could identify us pretty easily. So we decided at that time to grow our hair out, to trade in our boots for suits and we encouraged people to get jobs in law enforcement, to go to the military and get training and to recruit there.” – Christian Picciolini, former white supremacist.

 

This interview was shocking for me, but very well may not have been for the many people directly affected by racial profiling and police brutality. The fact that the very people that we trust to protect us, both domestically and abroad, want to harm us should alarm everyone.

My point is definitely not that all military or law enforcement branches are filled to the brim with malicious Neo-Nazis or white supremacists – however, in light of recent events concerning the police and people of color,  the existence of these racist forces in these branches should cause us to step back and reflect on the state of policing and justice in our country. White supremacy in law enforcement is not the only problem we currently have with justice and policing – however, it is a reason for us as a society to analyze law enforcement and the justice system in general, especially as white supremacy amplifies and is amplified by those justice-related issues.

We can see through emails that there is a racial problem in some police departments. After Michael Brown was fatally shot in Ferguson, racist emails were discovered by the Justice Department and members of the force were fired. Just recently, the second-ranking police official of the LAPD, Tom Angel, was fired after forwarding 15 total pages of racist jokes to his colleagues. Even more recently, an assistant police chief literally urged recruits that if they caught kids smoking, to “shoot if black.” It’s not too hard to believe that white supremacist infiltration exists, even if it may not happen often, especially since there is already a problem with race in some police departments. Again, the majority of police departments may not have this sort of problem with race, especially to this degree. However, the existence of these emails is a red flag. These also were just cases that were found – it is quite possible that there are many departments with undiscovered emails of similar messages.

Even the FBI recognizes this is a problem, they’ve recognized the term “ghost skin” to describe white supremacists who stay under wraps and join law enforcement. These ghost skins are in essence inside men – they alert their group of potential investigations. The military had had similar issues with white supremacists found within the ranks, where around a quarter of the troops personally experienced white nationalism (which signals a problem not limited to just a few bad apples, and even if it were limited, it would be a powerful few bad apples), and accordingly, the Department of Defense enacted stricter screenings to filter out those affiliated with white supremacist movements.

A recent leaked message board from a white supremacist forum confirms the alarming statement from the interview. User “Erwin Frey” stated “Be me in my Criminal investigation class. We’re doing introductions and it gets to me. They ask me what kind of police officer I wanted to be and I responded with ‘Riot Police Officer’. They asked why and I instantly responded with ‘I like curb stomping protesters who cause a riot.’ I think the professor likes me.” Another user, “Stannisthemannis” wrote“be nice to cops and they will be nice to you” while also declaring “Most white cops are sympathetic to us” and “I’m not too worried about the cops as long as we act like whites …. Get to know more cops [in real life] No one hates ***gers more than white cops.” True or not, the fact that the white supremacists are so comfortable with and emboldened by the idea that the police are undoubtedly on their side should be a major red flag for public safety.

It’s not like these claims of white supremacists infiltrating law enforcement are without precedent. The notorious Lynwood Vikings of the Los Angeles Police Department terrorized black and Hispanic men in the area for years. The judge in the case filed against the so-called Vikings called the group a “neo-nazi, white supremacist gang” whose existence was knowingly condoned by the LAPD in his opinion statement. There have been many similar cases.

A horrific early example is John Burge and his “Midnight Crew” who brutally tortured hundreds of black men in Chicago to force confessions. A powerful quote from Darrell Cannon, a victim wrongly convicted of murder, stated “The new-wave Klan wore badges instead of sheets.” In 2000, Neo-Nazi graffiti including swastikas were found in the Cleveland police department’s inner quarters, and officers were also seen wearing white power lapels. Recently, FBI has also found police officers who were active members of the KKK in states such as Florida, Texas and Louisiana. It’s unbelievable that this is still happening.

Police brutality and racial tension only emphasize the point that something is severely wrong with the current state of law enforcement. Many people of color were shot to death by police “who feared for their life” on every occasion.  Stephon Clark. Philando Castile. Diante Yarber. Anthony Lamar Smith. Walter Scott. Terence Crutcher. Alton Sterling. Eric Garner. Freddie Gray. Saheed Vassell. John Crawford II. Kathryn Johnston. Keith Lamont Scott. William Chapman. Tamir Rice. Among many others. There’s no denying the fact that many of these senseless killings were racially charged, and those that weren’t were a gross overreach of the law anyway. Shot at thirty times in a Walmart parking lot. Shot in his own backyard while on his phone. Shot in a car with his girlfriend and child. Shot for reading a book. Shot for selling CDs. Choked to death for selling cigarettes. Shot for holding a gun at a store. Shot in a parking lot by an officer who had previously posted Nazi photos online. These killings may have more so been the result of racial biases – the officers may not have been white supremacists – but the issue here is the possibility that they were. There are good officers; however, as bad officers filter in, more of these reprehensible fatal events will happen and there will be even less trust between the public and law enforcement.

Police departments will tell us that there was “no other choice” or that the victim “had a gun,” which may have been true in some cases, but at this point, it can be difficult to fully trust them, especially when hate group leaders are claiming to funnel their followers through law enforcement. Police unions have long been known to block policy that tries to create more civilian oversight of law enforcement, and also to actively seek to help abusive cops get their jobs back. Knowing these facts makes it very difficult to trust what those police departments tell us.

This isn’t to say that police can’t be trusted. There’s a lot of nuance – police officers are generally great people who put their life on the line to help the public. As citizens, we call on the police to help us. The majority of police officers aren’t racists. In some of the violent cases above, the police officer may have genuinely thought the victim was armed. However, racial biases at the subconscious level may also have influenced the actions of the offending officer. Studies have shown that police officers are more likely to shoot at the black characters in training games than white players on instinct. To help these good cops avoid these situations, increased training and awareness can reduce the chance of such a tragic outcome.

Additionally, the only people who can police the police are the police themselves and the justice systems. However, even then, we may not be able to trust the police to police themselves, and the judicial system has been a total flop. Stephon Clark’s DA, Anne Marie Schubert, has a long past of letting police officers who harm people of color walk free, such as in the case of Joseph Mann, a mentally disabled man shot by police (the policeman was fired by the police force for using too much deadly force).

After Charlottesville, any rational person would expect that the neo-Nazis who terrorized the town that day would be the first to be charged. That black men, such as Donald Blakney and Corey Long, who were only defending themselves when police would not, were prosecuted and charged by the commonwealth attorney is appalling. According to anti-racist activist Kendall Bills, the police did nothing as a grown man assaulted her right in front of them. The police, who are supposed to serve and protect, did nothing as assault-gun wielding fanatics pointed guns towards crowds of innocent protesters. To be passive is to be complicit – the current system stands “not on the side of the attacked, but on the side of the attacker,” Bills points out.

There are plenty of other examples of ineptitude and disgrace in the justice system. Louisiana police raided Kevin Smith’s “alleged address,” and conveniently found bags of cocaine, even though Smith didn’t even live at this address. Then, they proceeded to lock up Smith, with the help of the so-called justice system, for eight years without even convicting him of a crime. This is the moment when there should be outrage – as much outrage as gun owners have when they think their right to a well regulated militia is being infringed upon (ironic emphasis on “well-regulated”), since this man’s right to a speedy trial was very clearly violated, right? Wrong. The justice system found some bogus reason to throw him back in a for-profit prison (if you want to read more about my stance on for-profit prisons, check out my article) since they didn’t have any evidence of the cocaine charge, and he’s stuck in prison until 2022, still without a conviction. Absolutely ridiculous. And the worst part is, this would have been all swept under the rug had activist Shaun King not discovered this lapse in the justice system.

What’s worse is that there are probably countless examples of white supremacy in police departments that have never reached the public eye. How many cases were just swept under the rug? How many victims haven’t had their voices heard?  If even white supremacists leaders are saying we should look into law enforcement, then why aren’t we? Why isn’t this a bigger story? This something everything should know about – the public needs to be on the lookout to make sure instances of racism in both law enforcement and the justice system don’t go unnoticed.

We need policy that will protect all of us, including the good, honorable police officers and military personnel who are negatively affected by the actions of the bad.

 

Contact Tiger Sun at tgsun ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Who protects us from the police? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/10/who-protects-us-from-the-police/feed/ 0 1140785
Voluntourism: A truly noble effort or the Western savior complex? https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/25/voluntourism-a-truly-noble-effort-or-white-saviour-complex/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/25/voluntourism-a-truly-noble-effort-or-white-saviour-complex/#respond Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:00:52 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1139949 Tiger Sun considers the problems behind "voluntourism" and how it may not lead to lasting effects.

The post Voluntourism: A truly noble effort or the Western savior complex? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
“One of the happiest moment in your life was probably when you met me and my friends. I am sorry to tell you that there is a very slim chance we will ever meet again. In two years you are going to meet a grown man that you have never met before and you two are going to have a child … if you are lucky … he will probably leave you alone … in your small home made of mud and tree’s. You will probably sell your body to someone else to earn money for your child.” – Instagram user, Jossa Johansson.

 

Voluntourism – when affluent Westerners spend loads of money for the opportunity to travel to and “improve” a community—is growing in popularity. This sort of voluntourism is usually done through a travel agency that sets up the voluntourists with a region in need. On the surface, it seems so selfless—and I agree, many of these “voluntourists” probably have good intentions —they truly want to help. However, it often turns into the social-media-induced insensitivity shown by Johansson, an exaggerated and often inaccurate negative portrayal of the region.

 

The fact that these people are willing to spend their own time and money to assist people who may not have the same resources as them can be seen as quite noble and kind, but often, their efforts ultimately have no beneficial long term effect on the community.

 

Voluntourists are mostly assigned menial labor such as building schools and houses. This makes almost no sense. Professional bricklayers from the community could easily build the school faster and with better safety and craftsmanship. It’d be like turning down a small group of professional coders for a large scale computer database project and hiring a horde of elementary schoolers who have never touched a computer in their life. Why would anyone who wasn’t quite sure what they were doing actively pay to put other people who can do a better job for less money, in a far faster and safer manner, out of work? This is an inefficient system, and the community would probably be better off if each volunteer just wired money in for them to build infrastructure on their own.

 

Much of the time, the travel companies that organize the trip are the real beneficiaries, while the volunteers get an unforgettable experience and some great memories. However, the community they leave behind rarely reaps more than short-term benefits from their trip, especially as volunteers usually don’t return or think about the long-term for the community. Building a school won’t solve the inherent educational issues in the village – there are so many other things to consider than just the physical building. There was even an example of an NGO spending money to build a school but not having the money to hire and train teachers to teach, and thus, it went all to waste.

 

Voluntourism may even harm a community. A Human Sciences Research Council study on South Africa notes the problems of “orphan tourism”, where orphanages are exploited for the sake of extracting money via donations from volunteers. For example, the orphanages may make conditions worse so that visitors pity the children more and end up giving more money. Additionally, the constant cycling of groups of people that the children form attachment with and then lose is dangerous for the children’s mental health. Though this is probably an extreme example, there are also possible unintended consequences that voluntourists must keep in mind.

 

A cultural side effect of voluntourism is the exacerbation of the white savior complex. Instagram’s white savior Barbie does a great job of satirizing this issue. Created to showcase the often ineffective trips that voluntourists take, the account’s main message is that voluntourists are often “unqualified people doing jobs that they would never be allowed to do at home.” Additionally, volunteers often treat the people they’re claiming to help in a culturally insensitive manner – things they definitely wouldn’t do in a developed country. For example, even thinking that it is appropriate in any context to take a photo with a hospitalized child or a group of children playing outside is such a blatant example of how Western imperialist ideas still exist. No one would ever think of doing that in the United States or any other developed countries such as those in Europe. What makes it okay to do it in Nigeria or Haiti then? It seems that these wealthy vacationers treat this predicament as sort of a walk in the safari, where previous rules and values don’t apply, and at the end of their short two-week trip, the problem they were trying to solve magically disappears. This idea of doling out tens of thousands of dollars to travel and “fix” a country while in reality treating the people as if they were inferior sounds exactly like the imperialistic policies that ripped developing countries apart anyway.

 

By creating a lucrative business out of poverty, it seems that local communities are constantly being exploited. In a cynical sense, since this is such a booming business, why would the profit-driven travel agencies even want to help these communities in the long term? If they had the capabilities to heal and reform these communities in the long term, they would lose sources of business and additionally lose money. For-profit travel agencies would have almost no reason to genuinely want to heal these communities in the long term. Commercializing poverty reduces the chance of real change happening in these regions.

 

Also, what exactly are these volunteers looking to gain out of this experience? If volunteers weren’t allowed to take improper photos of their journey and share them all over social media, would they still go? Are high schoolers or undergraduates going on these expensive two-week-long trips out of the goodness of their heart or just to bolster their resume? There are no doubt people who go on this these trips for purely altruistic reasons, and I respect that, but if they truly wanted to help, they should take a step back and try to work on solving the underlying societal problems behind these poor communities rather than creating a short temporary fix only to never think about the community again. Instead of approaching the problem with a myopic lens, they need to think about the possible consequences of their action through a critical lens and make sure they respect the culture, rights and values of those they are trying to help.

 

Voluntourism can be very helpful, if done right. Sending doctors, urban development professionals and economists to help are good examples – they can truly help in the long term, such as with the health of the population as well as the overall development of the city. Having experienced professionals, instead of unqualified volunteers, meet with a community’s council to talk about its long-term plans would also be a decent alternative. However, the general population who may not have direct plans or desire to contribute to the long-term development of the community should reflect and examine their reasons for the trip – they should consider what they’re looking to gain out of it. It’s fine for someone to look for a memorable experience that they will remember forever and want to immerse themselves in a foreign culture, but at the end of the day, they should also consider the possibly negative effects they could have on the culture, such as through cultural insensitivity and unintended consequences, and view the people they are helping not as inferiors but as equals with a different way of life.

 

Contact Tiger Sun at tgsun ‘at’ stanford.edu.

 

The post Voluntourism: A truly noble effort or the Western savior complex? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/25/voluntourism-a-truly-noble-effort-or-white-saviour-complex/feed/ 0 1139949
The slippery slope of college admissions https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/11/the-slippery-slope-of-college-admissions/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/11/the-slippery-slope-of-college-admissions/#respond Wed, 11 Apr 2018 12:00:31 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1139060 Tiger Sun discusses how elite colleges, and efforts for colleges to brand themselves as such, may prevent them from serving certain groups of students.

The post The slippery slope of college admissions appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Seven-point-two percent. 5.05 percent. 4.80 percent. 4.65 percent. 4.30 percent.

These are the acceptance rates for Stanford for the last five years. The quickly declining numbers are nothing to brag about. The current state of college acceptances is alarming.

At the very shallowest level, these numbers are sort of a way to broadcast a school’s “eliteness.” Along with US News College Rankings, lower acceptance rates always correspond to the quality of an education, right? If US News ranks college A over college B, then I should go to college A. That makes sense. The feeling of attending an “elite” university distinguished by a top five college ranking and a sub-five percent acceptance rate can be a great feeling — I can attest to that too — but at the root, these are numbers that should not be celebrated. Additionally, the fact that a school is so “elite” can be discouraging to many applicants who may be qualified (including first-gen/low-income students), but feel they come from a background that may might not stack up to this idea of “eliteness.” This presents a conundrum, because universities want to brand themselves as “elite,” but this may also dishearten well-qualified applicants who may not identify with being “elite.”

The desire of colleges to continually deflate their acceptance rates to inflate their egos is dangerous. In a sense, it can have an exaggerated amount of sway on a college decision. I remember debating between Stanford and the state school prior to coming to college. Everyone’s advice was always along the lines of “Stanford’s acceptance rate is the lowest in the country, why is this even a discussion?” While I did end up making the choice to Stanford (which I think was definitely the right decision), there were a obviously a lot more factors that should have been weighed much higher than these mostly meaningless numbers. Granted, US News does have a “methodology” with a few factors such as college atmosphere and costs, but this sort of one-size-fits-all model is essentially nothing. Everyone weighs the factors differently, and just assigning arbitrary weights to each factor doesn’t tell us much. Simply considering the numbers could mislead someone into attending a college that may not be the right fit, and would end up hurting the person rather than helping.

At a much deeper level, the spiraling decline of these numbers will only exacerbate the huge class divide in America. The wealth disparity has already been highlighted in studies, most notably by Stanford Professor Raj Chetty and the Equality of Opportunity project. 17.5 percent of students from Stanford are in the top one percent economically, while just a small 18.6 percent come from the bottom 60 percent. Just putting that in perspective can be difficult, but the divide is certain to only get worse in time. Even with universities increasing the percentage of first-generation/low-income (FLI) students, the divide will still get worse. As colleges become more and more selective, anxious parents will invest more and more resources into their children. Before coming to Stanford, I had never realized that people actually hired expensive college counselors and invested so heavily in test-taking/writing camps for their children. The private education industry will boom in the upcoming years, allowing more education resources for the wealthy. Even if the proportion of FLI students is higher than in past years, which is a step in the right direction, it still won’t address the systemic gap in education between the income levels. Additionally, where does that leave families that are neither FLI nor upper-middle class? Without having the money to invest in academic resources, they’ll ultimately fall behind during the college admission process, too.

Previously we noted that colleges are trying to consider applicants more holistically, taking into account background along with academics, this “holistic approach” also has some flaws. Affirmative action has long been associated more with race rather than socioeconomic status, which is problematic — we can’t just generalize entire ethnicities with a simple question on the Common App. As Andrew Lam noted in an interview with PBS, “truly disadvantaged Asians get lumped in with model minority Asians.” He recommended that “we should assist students based on socioeconomic disadvantage, no matter their race. There are rural white kids who deserve special preference, but aren’t getting it.”

Affirmative action definitely has indispensable value in crafting balanced, diverse classes and making sure deserving students with disadvantaged backgrounds have a fair shot at higher education. Although race is a factor in one’s background, one’s socioeconomic status is a much more important factor, especially in that it more directly affects someone’s access to important educational resources and information. In a sort of cynical way, wealth can buy opportunity and educational advantages — as long as someone has a great deal of wealth, they can have an exponentially larger access to resources than someone without. Therefore, a wealthy minority applicant should not receive preference over a lower-class non-minority applicant solely on the basis of race. Socioeconomic status and race should both be factors, but socioeconomic status should weigh heavier in the process.

In addition to altering affirmative action policies, the best way to alleviate this problem for good is to make information and knowledge regarding colleges more available and useful for students, such as through online resources, more guidance counselors, and in general, more money invested in our nation’s education system. Essentially, implementing programs offering the services of college counselors and SAT camps in public schools would really help bridge the gap and allow applicants to be more informed on their futures. Colleges can also do their part of investing more in housing and scaling up the amount of students in the university. Demand for education is at an all time high, as shown by the sheer quantity of college applications, yet universities are not necessarily trying to accommodate more students. The payoff is clear. Students will be more confident in themselves and their abilities and knowledgeable about the whole admission process — the tagline of “elite” school would not put off disadvantaged students and would be much less intimidating, and thus affirmative action policies would in turn be more effective in diversifying the school population.

It’s so difficult to explore a solution to this problem, especially since it spills over to the United States education system as a whole, where public schools, such as those in the inner cities, are falling apart at the seams. There are so many issues with the the system, and falling acceptance rates are only a harbinger for rougher times to come unless something changes.

 

Contact Tiger Sun at tgsun ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post The slippery slope of college admissions appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/11/the-slippery-slope-of-college-admissions/feed/ 0 1139060
Prison labor: Modern slavery https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/15/prison-labor-modern-slavery/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/15/prison-labor-modern-slavery/#respond Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:00:12 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1138233 Tiger Sun argues that private prisons exploit their inmates and don't do enough to rehabilitate them for life after prison.

The post Prison labor: Modern slavery appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Institutional slavery was supposedly outlawed in 1865. So why is it that a system where workers, who are unfairly forced into the system, are paid pennies a day and “rented” and “traded” around is still in existence?

People are generally familiar with some of the other problematic lobbies, such as the NRA (which I wrote about in my last article) and Big Pharma, but a huge problem that falls under the radar comes in the form of the private prison lobby. In 2016, Obama and the Justice department passed legislation phasing out for-profit prisons, but Trump’s “law-and-order” platform has mostly rolled those laws back, and for-profit prisons are back on the come-up. Especially in states with a large immigrant presence such as Arizona, the for-profit prison lobby is especially active in attempting to pass legislation that would increase the number of incarcerations. They lobby heavily with ICE and the Department of Homeland security. As stated by Christopher Petrella, “Private prison companies have been preparing for such a moment by shifting their focus to ICE facilities, many of which are already run by for-profit entities and house immigration detainees.”

Prison labor is so profitable and so under the media radar, but it raises both ethical and societal questions, especially when put in the hands of the private sector. The industry itself earns over $1 billion a year, while paying inmates a few cents an hour, hardly a wage. Ultimately, we should be trying to reduce the number of people we put in jail by properly rehabilitating current inmates and establishing policies that focus less on incarceration and more on addressing the actual problems that cause these incarcerations.

The issue with the privatized prison industry is that the only way for them to be sustainable is to arrest more people. And once state and federal governments become reliant on these private prisons, private prisons can leverage that power to pass legislation that arbitrarily punishes people. For example, a private prison in Estancia, New Mexico held the entire state government hostage by threatening to close unless 300 new inmates were inducted to the facility, which eventually did happen. It’s ridiculous that this private institution based on the labor of people whose rights have been deprived can have such a powerful impact on government. It seems like an ethical conflict of interest that a corporation dependent on labor supplied through the justice system can alter that same justice system on a whim.

At the end of the day, the purpose of a prison is rehabilitation: inmates are people with families and aspirations too, and definitely have much to offer society. For example, a Silicon Valley based program, Code.7370, teaches inmates to code so that when they leave prison, they have marketable skills that can translate directly into the workforce. This is so important for reducing recidivism and helping released inmates successfully integrate into society. This is the type of program we should have in a society; instead, we have the travesty of for-profit prisons that do nothing to help the imprisoned and rely on their labor instead.

Additionally, a facility whose sole purpose is to create profit probably doesn’t care about the wellbeing and health of inmates at all, and who blames them? When the only people that matter are shareholders, who cares if the inmates are suffering through disease and abuse? Of course, this is ethically blasphemous, but when money is involved, it seems that morals and human worth fly out the window. Abuse, overcrowding, staffing, violence, sexual assault and terrible conditions are many of the problems that plague for-profit prisons. There have been stories of no working toilets and lights, with rats running rampant as underfed prisoners crowd in dirty cells.

There’s the terrifying story of Terrill Thomas who died of dehydration after prison officers refused his pleas for something to drink after the water in his cell broke. There are so many cases of abuse, both mental and physical, by prison guards, who are not entirely at fault, on inmates that it’s impossible to list all of the atrocities that occur. Prison guards aren’t trained and are understaffed anyway, all to cut costs. It’s all for the shareholders, right? Even though these problems exist at all levels of prison be it federal or private, the problem is worse in private prisons. To give an example, assaults on guards happen 49 percent more often and assaults on inmates happen 65 percent more frequently in private prisons.

So why am I listing all of these atrocities? I’m doing this to show that prison is ultimately dehumanizing. These problems aren’t at all unique to private prisons, which exactly exemplifies the problem even more: as a society, we need to do our best to stop throwing people in prison.

Many people in prison don’t even belong there in the first place. A Time study found that over 39 percent of people in these prisons are low-level offenders with low risk of violence who should be allowed out. Time also stated that longer sentences have almost no effect of reducing recidivism and in some cases can increase the chance of crime. The Huffington Post additionally found that “U.S. law enforcement arrests about 1.5 million people each year for drug law violations – and more than 80 percent of those arrests are for simple drug possession. On any given night, there are at least 133,000 people behind bars in U.S. prisons and jails for drug possession – and 63,000 of these people are held pre-trial, which means they’re locked up simply because they’re too poor to post bail.”

Also, according to the NAACP fact sheet, race is a big factor in incarceration. Even though whites and African-Americans use drugs at roughly the same rate, black people are six times more likely to be thrown in jail. For-profit prisons only exacerbate this racial inequality – in their quest to find more labor to fuel their sweatshops, they unequally impact black communities, tearing families apart and continuing the cycle as broken households have been linked to more crime.

By fighting the for-profit prison lobby, we can accomplish many things. It’s so unethical and counterproductive in society to actively seek to profit off punishment and tearing families apart, be it through unfair laws or deportations. Even though the prison system still has many problems at the federal level, each of those problems are amplified when put into the hands of singularly profit-minded corporations. There are vicious conflicts of interest connecting the justice department and the lobby along with hopeless cycles of imprisonment that unfairly impact poorer communities. Again, the love of money consumes Capitol Hill, and we must ask ourselves what we value more: human life or a deranged institution that will only exacerbate the societal problems of today.

 

Contact Tiger Sun at tgsun ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Prison labor: Modern slavery appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/15/prison-labor-modern-slavery/feed/ 0 1138233
The fallacy of gun logic https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/28/the-fallacy-of-gun-logic/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/28/the-fallacy-of-gun-logic/#respond Wed, 28 Feb 2018 13:00:59 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1137461 Tiger Sun analyzes how the NRA frames the gun debate in ways which prevent effective policies.

The post The fallacy of gun logic appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I personally watched my hometown of Blacksburg become dazed with shock after the Virginia Tech April 16th shooting, and have seen countless other communities on the news torn apart by a madman with a killing machine. Sandy Hook. Aurora. San Bernardino. Las Vegas. Sutherland Springs. And most recently, Parkland.

The reasons that the government won’t push forward on gun regulations are mired in pure hypocrisy and greed. I don’t understand how people could possibly not be against mass shootings, but here we are, in a time where the Florida legislature refuses to even discuss gun control in the midst of one of the worst school shootings in history.

Despite guns not being mentioned in the Bible a single time, NRA executive Wayne LaPierre claimed the second amendment “is not bestowed by man, but granted by God to all Americans as our American birthright.” I’m really glad Jesus himself was present at the signing of the Constitution to stick in the second amendment. Really, though: Can people who pride themselves on “traditional values” really believe this? Even if LaPierre was tangentially referencing a right to self defense, does someone really need a military grade rifle capable of killing hundreds of people just casually sitting in their home?  

I think the issue at hand is the NRA and its staunch fanbase. Money flows into the NRA through gun manufacturers which then trickles into the hands of pro-gun politicians so it’s difficult to effect meaningful change. Having no change is beneficial for the NRA. Hence they pass blatantly dangerous legislation like the Dickey Amendment, which is a ban on gun control research by the Center for Disease Control.

If the CDC could research gun control, then the government would have such an overwhelming reason to restrict firearms. There’s already so much other research out there conclusively against guns. However, the lobby passed this legislation so the government cannot independently verify that guns are such a risk, and guns can still be purchased and sold easily within the country. That way, they can earn money from gun manufacturers as well as further their agenda of “good guys with guns.” Even this argument makes no sense. If the NRA truly wanted to get more guns into the hands of “good guys,” wouldn’t it make more sense to actually find these good guys first? Perhaps through a background check? Why in the world would the NRA actively work to make background checks weaker? Something doesn’t add up.

Of course, there’s also the argument that “any bad guy can get a gun if they wanted to.” Again, this is bad reasoning. There’s lots of research on this, but common sense-wise, how could anyone possibly think this argument makes sense? To stop gun violence, we give bad guys guns too and try to minimize the amount of innocent people they kill before a good guy with a gun (hopefully) stops them? It’s easy for a bad guy to get one now, because that’s the way current policy works: shouldn’t we fix that?

Finally, there’s the argument that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” where mental illness is blamed as the root of the issue. This idea is problematic in many ways, especially since having a mental illness doesn’t automatically make one inclined to harm others, but even if we humor this idea, why has the government, backed by the NRA, rolled back health care for mentally ill people while at the same time making it easier for mentally ill people to obtain guns? It just doesn’t make sense.

The NRA thrives on emotional appeal. When anyone breaks down their highly flawed logic and arguments, they always link it back to some far-fetched idea of the socialist-bent liberal government trying to take over everyone’s lives. There’s such an unbelievable amount of evidence showing the dangers of guns, yet the NRA always tries to fixate on made-up hypotheticals.

But what’s been happening in the country the last ten years isn’t hypothetical: this is real life.

Mass shootings are political issues. We need to stop pretending they aren’t. Politics is the only way to stop these mass shootings—we have to stop forgetting about these tragedies a few weeks after they occur. Policy is what needs to change to greatly reduce the amount of lives lost through these mass shootings.

What the Parkland students are doing right now is absolutely incredible. They’ve brought and kept the spotlight on a serious problem that’s been too often swept under the rug by the very people we vote into office to “protect us.” We need to harness the current wave of activism, and make real change: this is our chance. Corporate sponsors are beginning to drop the NRA. NRA-backed senators are being lambasted by high schoolers on national television. The only way to beat the NRA and it’s resistance to important change is to beat them at their own game: politics. We cannot let this happen again. #NeverAgain #WeRemember

Contact Tiger Sun at tgsun ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post The fallacy of gun logic appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/28/the-fallacy-of-gun-logic/feed/ 0 1137461
Space exploration: Colossal waste of money or one giant leap for mankind? https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/15/space-exploration-colossal-waste-of-money-or-one-giant-leap-for-mankind/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/15/space-exploration-colossal-waste-of-money-or-one-giant-leap-for-mankind/#respond Thu, 15 Feb 2018 13:00:46 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1136808 It’s something I’ve heard a lot here and there from both liberals and conservatives: “Why should we invest so much in something that barely affects us?”

The post Space exploration: Colossal waste of money or one giant leap for mankind? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Following Elon Musk’s brilliant, yet also brilliantly expensive Falcon Heavy launch, there was again social media outrage decrying it as a huge waste of resources that could have been better used on Earth. It’s something I’ve heard a lot here and there from both liberals and conservatives: “Why should we invest so much in something that barely affects us?”

I’m not that surprised when this question comes from supporters of the current administration. Our supremely well-qualified EPA Chief, Scott Pruitt, just recently stated, “We know that humans have most flourished during time of warming trends. I think there’s [sic] assumptions made that because the climate is warming, that that necessarily is a bad thing.” Trump has also tried to hide and censor scientific facts that go against his platform, even cutting funding for many major science agencies.

This makes it even more strange that some liberals are against the scientific progress that space exploration brings.

The common “bleeding-heart liberal” argument is often that “since money isn’t being spent on poor people or starving children in Africa, it’s a waste.” For example, Nathan Robinson describes these launches as “indefensible wastes of money” in his article that sums up much of this childish reasoning. Robinson tries to casually equate Musk’s position about space exploration with the idea that “anyone who mentions the colossal waste the project involves, or the various social uses to which these resources could be put, [should] be dismissed as a killjoy.”

He’s exactly right. These people are indeed killjoys, and should be educated on the benefits that research can bring. In addition to being applied to Elon Musk and other rich entrepreneurs, this argument is also used for reasons that we should defund NASA.

What Robinson fails to address is the fact that the research and development that is needed to undertake such a massive project directly benefits us back on Earth. This is something I believe cannot be overstated enough: Even though we might just see something like a rocket launch as “cool” or an “oh wow” moment, in reality so much preparation and research goes into it that will inherently flow back and benefit us. Imagine a life without prosthetic limbs, heart pumps, solar power, advance firefighter gear and water purification. NASA has played a large part in the research and development of all of these items.

Innovations that are developed through NASA’s research are known as spin-offs, and often include medical and safety breakthroughs. Robinson states, “perhaps we could make it so that a child no longer dies of malaria every two minutes,” but space exploration could actually be the solution to this disease or similar ones through spin-offs. The technology that results from these large scale missions could solve many problems back on Earth.

From an economic standpoint, space exploration in general has so many benefits. Starting off, NASA doesn’t occupy a large portion of the federal budget at all, clocking in at a 0.4% of the 2018 budget. Even then, it’s not like the money that goes into NASA is being wasted. Each dollar that goes into NASA adds $7-14 to the economy. It’s a good investment to invest in space: we get great technology that we can use here on Earth as well as a boost to industry.

Viewpoints like Robinson’s disparaging Musk for using his own money on his own project instead of sending it off to another cause are reasons that wealth redistribution (which is needed in society) is often looked down upon within the U.S. The idea that rich people are both the sole problem and sole solution for society doesn’t really make sense, and especially not for scientists like Musk who are trying to develop ways to advance society. At the same time we as a society disparage wealthy people for working hard and having money, we expect them to give up that money and magically solve all of the world’s problems.

Even when Musk is involved with such a scientific breakthrough that will no doubt benefit the majority of members of society, much of it from his personal investment, he is still insulted. Even when the government is able to make an amazing return on its investment from NASA and other space programs that can be used to help civilians, people like Robinson will no doubt still bash on the agency. If anything, we need to invest in space technology: instead of ridiculing Elon Musk for shooting a car into space, we should relish the technology and R&D that went into it.

 

Contact Tiger Sun at tgsun@stanford.edu

The post Space exploration: Colossal waste of money or one giant leap for mankind? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/15/space-exploration-colossal-waste-of-money-or-one-giant-leap-for-mankind/feed/ 0 1136808
Duck syndrome and a culture of misery https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/31/duck-syndrome-and-a-culture-of-misery/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/31/duck-syndrome-and-a-culture-of-misery/#respond Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:00:28 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1135818 Stanford duck syndrome. Almost everyone knows what it is. We’ve probably all felt it at some point. Seeing people around you effortlessly glide through their lives, acing exams, landing internships and turning up at parties while you feebly trudge through your four p-sets and three projects on your nightly four hours of sleep can be […]

The post Duck syndrome and a culture of misery appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Stanford duck syndrome. Almost everyone knows what it is. We’ve probably all felt it at some point. Seeing people around you effortlessly glide through their lives, acing exams, landing internships and turning up at parties while you feebly trudge through your four p-sets and three projects on your nightly four hours of sleep can be difficult. Of course, you genuinely love seeing your friends and fellow students succeed, but how can everyone else be so happy and bubbly while you’re struggling to stay afloat in a personal wave of inadequacy?

On the opposite side of the spectrum, the stress culture here is something I didn’t exactly expect when coming to Stanford. I had heard of schools such as MIT, UC Berkeley and Harvard turning into stress-filled pressure cookers as time went on, but Stanford was always supposed to be the “happy place,” right? Stanford was the palm-tree paradise, the pinnacle of student happiness, bathed in perpetual sunshine as if blessed by the heavens. My friends at other colleges always joke, “at least you have grade inflation at Stanford.” However, the reality is that everyone here is so brilliant to the point where you feel the only way to belong is to subject yourself to extreme, unhealthy habits in the name of academia with the promise of a better résumé. The Stanford stress culture definitely exists, even if it is a little more hidden than at other high-profile universities.

Sometimes, I wonder if students here are genuinely happy. We put on a brave face and a wide smile when we go to our classes and see our friends, but on the inside, the pressure is slowly tearing us apart. During one of my first weeks at Stanford, I had a talk about this with some other kids: It sometimes feels like the Stanford experience is shrouded in a cloud of superficiality. I think it really helped to talk about this, and I encourage others to engage in this kind of discussion. What’s really going on inside everyone’s heads? Are people what they seem?

The duck syndrome and the culture of misery are a strange combination, and a seeming contradiction. While everyone seems to be smoothly moving along, everyone also seems to be simultaneously working themselves to death. A close friend of mine described it as “duck syndrome culture, where everything is effortless,” and “workaholic culture, where you grind or you die.”

This sort of polarity is so hard to describe, but it’s most visible at the extremes. I remember coming back to the dorm after a late night out, and seeing another close friend hard at work on computer science. She looked exhausted. As she dozed off periodically, we implored her to go to bed. But she refused. After some more prodding, we gave up. The worst part is that this is quite often a normal occurrence. No one is guilt-free. I remember yesterday working on my hardware for a CS project, being so exhausted I could pass out with my friends telling me it was time to sleep, but just thinking, “I just need to do one more line of code!” Even today, I skipped breakfast and took a very late lunch just to go to CS office hours, much against my body’s wishes.

This workaholic mentality is only exacerbated by the duck syndrome. We see so much achievement and think that the only way to even come close to catching up is by working ourselves to death. A few weeks ago, another close friend of mine had pulled two all-nighters on her birthday weekend to work on a project. That Sunday night, we noticed her face was flushed and she looked exhausted and overworked. One of my other friends remarked she looked sick, so we took her temperature: 102.1 degrees. We tried our best to force her to rest, but the culture of misery struck again – she refused.

It’s a testament to this toxic “grind or die” atmosphere at universities that, even in the face of major illness, we put the pedal to the metal and continue to drive our health off a cliff. It’s not like this is a conscious decision to be miserable, but sometimes it feels as if taking care of our own health is a guilty pleasure. I talked to someone who said that they felt almost sinful for sleeping in one day. We subliminally equate feeling burned out to being a good student.

This has no doubt been stated many times, but the only solution is self-care. During NSO, Stanford did its best to imprint in our minds that taking care of ourselves is the most important thing at university, but much like the other information at NSO, it seems to have been lost on everyone here. We need to take a harder stance towards emphasizing the fact that “pulling three consecutive all-nighters” isn’t a badge of honor, and that it’s okay to try to sleep nine hours a night. As a student body, we need to combat the culture of misery and remember that many other people here are having a hard time. I think the Stanford University Places I’ve Cried Facebook group is a great idea; we need to show that it’s okay to be sad. Services such as CAPS need more exposure, for the sake of student mental health. At the same time, we have to note that feeling bad is not a contest, and it’s silly and unhealthy to try to derive pleasure from working too hard or being tired all the time. As a community, we need to look out for each other. Health comes first, always.

Contact Tiger Sun at tgsun ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Duck syndrome and a culture of misery appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/31/duck-syndrome-and-a-culture-of-misery/feed/ 0 1135818
H&M: A pillar of racism or a victim of political correctness? https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/17/hm-a-pillar-of-racism-or-a-victim-of-political-correctness/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/17/hm-a-pillar-of-racism-or-a-victim-of-political-correctness/#respond Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:00:57 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1135153 “Coolest Monkey in the Jungle.” That was the text that ignited a bonfire of reaction. Several celebrities, such as G-Eazy and The Weeknd, have cut off ties with H&M, a Swedish retail company. H&M stores in South Africa have been heavily vandalized with wares stolen and mannequins destroyed. What caused all of this to unfold? […]

The post H&M: A pillar of racism or a victim of political correctness? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
“Coolest Monkey in the Jungle.”

That was the text that ignited a bonfire of reaction. Several celebrities, such as G-Eazy and The Weeknd, have cut off ties with H&M, a Swedish retail company. H&M stores in South Africa have been heavily vandalized with wares stolen and mannequins destroyed.

What caused all of this to unfold? On Jan. 8, H&M posted a picture of a young black male wearing a green hoodie that contained the offending text, and a few hours later, the internet exploded.

Many people saw this as an egregious act of intentional racism. Members of the Economic Freedom Fighter party (EFF) in South Africa were responsible for trashing the H&M store in the Mall of Africa. Leaders of the EFF have responded by saying, “All rational people should agree that the store should not be allowed to continue operating in South Africa,” and “We make no apology about what the fighters did today.”

However, I think it’s also very important to note who did not see this as an inexcusable act of racism. The child’s mother was reported saying,Stop crying wolf all the time, [it’s] an unnecessary issue here. Get over it.” Additionally, there isn’t really a racist stigma behind the “monkey” in Sweden.

I think there was definitely a lack of oversight on H&M’s part: Someone should have known the cultural connotation behind the text and fixed it immediately. That being said, the backlash seems a bit excessive and unwarranted. H&M has already heavily apologized and rectified the error by removing the wares from stores.

What exactly will all this H&M-directed outrage solve? I understand the fact that no one noticed the possible issues with the sweatshirt points to deeper, more systemic issues. These issues involve the normalization of racist language and behavior in everyday life and are definitely great discussion topics. Indeed, there is a lot we have to notice and be aware of when we speak and act, including different meanings of words in different cultures. However, getting mad at H&M and destroying company stores isn’t exactly solving those issues.

There’s no reason for rioters to damage stores. It only harms other protest groups — now detractors can effectively lump these EFF rioters and other more nonviolent groups together, which can take away from the message of both EFF and those groups. For example, after Ferguson, the riots that engulfed the town afterwards took away from injustice that had just occurred. Many people pointed to the riots as the reason that police were forced to be more violent and authoritarian — police had to protect themselves, especially with so many rioters around. In a similar vein, these riots paint such an immature picture. The rioters’ reasoning and motivations may have been noble, but their message certainly gets skewed and overshadowed by the fact that they turned to violence immediately.

It still boggles me that the EFF had the audacity to make the proclamation “All rational people should agree that the store should not be allowed to continue operating in South Africa” on behalf of “all rational people,” and then turn right around and take out its anger on employees and store workers who had no part in the design of the shirt.

I think it was constructive for the celebrities to make some sort of statement and for the protesters to bring the issue to the spotlight, but once things got violent, the protesters took it too far.

 

Contact Tiger Sun at tgsun ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post H&M: A pillar of racism or a victim of political correctness? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/17/hm-a-pillar-of-racism-or-a-victim-of-political-correctness/feed/ 0 1135153
Campus tourists: A welcome sight https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/22/campus-tourists-a-welcome-sight/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/22/campus-tourists-a-welcome-sight/#respond Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:00:16 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1133832 “Wilbur Hall dining? Where is it?” A confused-looking, kindly old Chinese man stopped me as I was preparing to bike to class. After I pointed him in the general direction, it really got me thinking: “Man, there are a lot of Chinese tourists here.” Many of my friends here at Stanford have also noticed the […]

The post Campus tourists: A welcome sight appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
“Wilbur Hall dining? Where is it?”

A confused-looking, kindly old Chinese man stopped me as I was preparing to bike to class. After I pointed him in the general direction, it really got me thinking: “Man, there are a lot of Chinese tourists here.” Many of my friends here at Stanford have also noticed the large amount of visitors from abroad asking for photos and directions, sometimes going the wrong way in the circle of death. Some might find them a little annoying — one of my friends said, “They always block the sidewalk, and I almost crash” — but I find them a welcome sight, reminiscent of home in China.

Just last year, I was probably one of those flummoxed tourists with my extended family, who were visiting the States. Walking in the middle of the street, asking harried students for directions to MemChu and Treehouse, taking pictures in front of Hoover Tower, I now realize that I was probably an inconvenience to dozens of students just trying to make it to class. Looking back though, that trip to California was such a meaningful experience in that it was one of the only large family trips that we’ve taken in the U.S. For many of these Chinese tourists, this trip to the U.S. is such a big moment.

And yes, Chinese tourists can be annoying — sometimes, they make the lines at the dining halls really long and they can be a little rowdy. But I’d much rather have them than not.

They represent the true globalization of the world as we move forward in technology. It’s a true reminder of how far we’ve advanced as a species when it’s possible for someone on the other side of the planet to fly across an ocean for something as small as simply visiting a college campus. Whenever, I see a large 旅游团, or tour group, often headed by a tour leader holding a bright red flag, I always get a sense of wonder: Why did they choose to fly halfway around the world to visit us at Stanford?

Equally as wondrous to me is how far China has come. I won’t claim to be extremely involved with my Chinese heritage, but I’ve definitely asked my parents about their lives in China growing up. It didn’t sound easy growing up under Mao’s Communist regime, rationing food, living in relative poverty. Now, especially when visiting China and experiencing its growth in the last 10 years, I’ve seen its insane development into a technology giant. The fact that many Chinese people have gone from having to worry about putting food on the table come dinnertime to being able to take leisurely trips to Stanford, California is a big deal for me, and for them and their families as well.

And as a Stanford student, I really appreciate the clout of my school on the international level. As one of my close friends told me: “The tourists not only increase the reputation of the school but also make the school feel alive.” In a less nuanced sort of way, it feels good to go to such a renowned school. I know I’m not supposed to derive too much pleasure from or put too much thought into what others think, but every time I see tourists, it feels personally validating that I’m here. My friend is also right in that it makes the school feel alive. Observing these tourists, so full of happiness and fresh energy, it can be uplifting from the sometimes monotonous everyday schedule we go through.

The tourism scene at Stanford can definitely get kind of irritating, especially when swerving to avoid the oblivious couple taking pictures in front of the Oval or getting stuck behind a long line of tourists at Wilbur’s ramen bar. But thinking back to the good family memories I’ve had as a tourist and the fact that these people have flown so far just to see my home, it gives me a warm, feel-good feeling of gratitude to be here at Stanford, even through the ups and downs.

 

Contact Tiger Sun at tgsun ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Campus tourists: A welcome sight appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/22/campus-tourists-a-welcome-sight/feed/ 0 1133832
‘Free speech or white supremacy?’: East Coast edition https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/15/free-speech-or-white-supremacy-east-coast-edition/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/15/free-speech-or-white-supremacy-east-coast-edition/#respond Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:00:17 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1133478 Amid all the controversy surrounding his invitation to speak, self-proclaimed Islamophobe Robert Spencer gave his contentious talk last night. If you check the comments on that article, you’ll see the hate and bigotry that Spencer represents, which leads to my confusion: Who in the Stanford College Republicans thought that Robert Spencer would be representative of […]

The post ‘Free speech or white supremacy?’: East Coast edition appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Amid all the controversy surrounding his invitation to speak, self-proclaimed Islamophobe Robert Spencer gave his contentious talk last night. If you check the comments on that article, you’ll see the hate and bigotry that Spencer represents, which leads to my confusion: Who in the Stanford College Republicans thought that Robert Spencer would be representative of all conservatives? Are they trying to paint a worse picture of conservatives in general? If these hate-spewing Internet trolls and Islamophobes are the best that the Republican Party can muster, it seems like they’re just shooting themselves in the foot by publicizing it so much.

Anyway, I’ve digressed enough; there are many more articles about Robert Spencer on The Daily opinions page if you are interested in reading.

I’d like to bring attention to a similar event on the East Coast, at a place I hold very dear in my heart: Blacksburg, Virginia. An analogous uproar rages here – the debate between expressing one’s opinions and what should be allowed in a university setting. At Virginia Tech, protests against self-proclaimed white supremacist Mark Neuhoff of the English department were held throughout campus. Earlier this year, a few days after the clashes in Charlottesville, Virginia Tech senior Tori Coan discovered incriminating posts from Neuhoff’s social media claiming himself to be a white supremacist. After the public learned of this information, student-led protests crashed President Timothy Sands’ State of the University address geared towards donors and alumni.

I’d agree that Neuhoff had the freedom of expression to say what he did. But it is totally unacceptable for an institution of higher learning to continue to defend him and allow him to teach.

First off, no one can say they’re a white supremacist and still remain impartial through the grading and teaching of a course. If I were to believe the statement “white people are better than every other race” so much to even post about it online, of course that’d affect the decisions I’d make in both my life. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the grading could be considered fair, and there’d definitely be subliminal, if not extremely conscious, decisions that could affect a student’s future based simply on race.

Also, as an institution of higher learning, Virginia Tech is supposed to pride itself on being a diverse and welcoming place for people of all races. What does it say about a university’s standards if it knowingly allows a white supremacist to remain within a department? Also, it is totally within reason for Virginia Tech as an employer to terminate an employee who does not follow community standards. After all, the precedent is there, after University of Tampa fired a professor for his thoughts on Hurricane Harvey. What’s holding Virginia Tech back from firing Neuhoff now?

Finally, hate speech legitimately poses a threat. Freedom of speech and expression should definitely be allowed – unless it puts someone’s life in jeopardy. Soon after Neuhoff was exposed, Coan began receiving many threats including pledges to “fuck her up” and “destroy her.” From that same article, Coan said, “I’m concerned first and foremost about my safety. I don’t feel safe on campus.” What kind of friends does a white supremacist most likely have? Other white supremacists, and dangerous ones, of course. The anti-fascist group New River Against Fascism noted:

“Who is Mark talking to? Well, his 1,830 Facebook friends. This list is composed of members of the alt-right and white nationalists from around the globe. He is posting his hatred, disguised as speech, to members of White Lives Matter, Vanguard America, Traditional Workers Party, neo-Nazis and European far-right extremists.”

From the same Root article, Neuhoff actually called out Coan for “trying to get him fired,” and given his menacing cohort of acquaintances, I’d be terrified too if I were Coan. Neuhoff’s actions directly led to the month-and-a-half-long harassment of a student, so why is he still employed by the government?

Neuhoff’s white supremacist statements are covered by freedom of speech, that’s for sure. But, that doesn’t mean there can’t be repercussions, especially from an employer. Virginia Tech needs to step up and reevaluate their vows to diversity and student safety.

 

Contact Tiger Sun at tgsun ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post ‘Free speech or white supremacy?’: East Coast edition appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/15/free-speech-or-white-supremacy-east-coast-edition/feed/ 0 1133478
Blue 42 … Take a knee https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/01/blue-42-take-a-knee/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/01/blue-42-take-a-knee/#respond Wed, 01 Nov 2017 08:00:31 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1132252 The 2013 NFC National Championship. First and 10 at the Seattle 18. The 12th Man roaring. Kaepernick to the end zone. Intercepted. Game over. Fast forward four years, and Kaepernick’s actions are again making waves in the league — though this time not on the field. In an attempt to bring racism and oppression to light, […]

The post Blue 42 … Take a knee appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The 2013 NFC National Championship. First and 10 at the Seattle 18. The 12th Man roaring. Kaepernick to the end zone. Intercepted. Game over.

Fast forward four years, and Kaepernick’s actions are again making waves in the league — though this time not on the field. In an attempt to bring racism and oppression to light, Kaepernick knelt during the anthem in 2016. It started a movement.

If you’ve peeped at the comments thread on any NFL Facebook post recently, you’ll see an overflowing of angry comments threatening to boycott the league. Here are some examples:

“NFL stands for “National” Football League … they no longer represent the Nation … it’s now LFL (‘Liberal’ Football League).”

“Another day, not spending a dime on the NFL nor its sponsors. Why? Because I stand and I stand tall! I don’t need millions to make a point, but I’m teaching my children life what integrity means and why the NFL has none.”

“There was a football tonight? I was watching the best World Series game ever … Pound sand, protesting football idiots … take a knee, you’ve 1uped your status … Idiot.”

I’m not even quite sure what the third person was saying, but the overarching message of all three is pretty much the same: Kneeling is unpatriotic, and we will boycott this blasphemy. This doesn’t really make sense to me. Wasn’t this country founded on the principles of protest? Instead of kneeling, our founding fathers trespassed and chucked millions of dollars of tea into a harbor, and we celebrate that! The right to speak our mind and to let our values be known is fundamental to our democracy; to go against this is truly unpatriotic.

And not only that, these players are shining the national spotlight on racial inequality, a huge problem in the U.S., especially after events in Ferguson, Raleigh, Tulsa etc. Why is that such a bad thing? Many people on these message boards like to claim that “oh, these players make so much money, so what do they know about racism?” as an attempt to delegitimize the point the players are making — but I invite people to check out the case of Michael Bennett. Also, the assertion that one needs to experience something in order to talk about it or protest it is malarkey. Does that mean men can’t be feminists because they’ve never experienced the oppression women have lived through? Does that mean Donald Trump can’t make policies for the common people because he’s never been one of them? These players have every right to fight for a movement they believe in that affects their brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, cousins back home.

Finally, a lot of people make this about disrespecting veterans. This concern is much more valid than the preceding argument, but it is troubling to refer to veterans as a monolith. There are many different views of the military, and it’s unfair to consolidate all of these perspectives into a single message. As veteran Shea Jones noted: “Often (veterans) are used as a counter because no one wants to go against veterans’ issues.” I’m not really in a position to remark about how exactly veterans feel, but I think this tweet is particularly telling. Additionally, Kaepernick originally got his idea to kneel from a veteran, Nate Boyer, as a sign of respect. It seems that Kaepernick’s demonstrations were never meant to directly disrespect veterans.

Veterans certainly have a right to be ticked about the flag, but they also have the right to support the kneeling; we can’t generalize how they feel about the flag. Unless someone is or has tight connections with a veteran, they usually have no place in using the “you’re disrespecting all the veterans” argument. There’s a clear distinction between using another group of people as a prop to further your own agenda (as in this case) and participating in and bettering a movement you truly believe in (as in the case of male feminists). So if someone with no real relation to veterans pulls this argument, they’re most likely someone looking for an excuse to look the other way when it comes to racial inequality.

I used to be against the whole “kneelers” movement too. I thought it was something silly and sensationalized — after all, football is just a game, so is there any place for politics here? But the more I thought about it, I realized, what’s the use of having such a large platform and doing nothing to solve the problems you see around the world? It’s great when a player wants to  create an organization to help underprivileged children in inner cities, but what’s so different about wanting to support a movement to improve race relations? There are problems in society that we cannot brush under the rug any longer.

It’s absolutely incredible to me that “grown” men would rather throw a temper tantrum and burn hundreds of dollars in team gear and merchandise than to even consider the possibility that there might be a problem with the current state of the union. Of course, they’re entitled to do so, but still, does that solve anything? At least in the case of Kaepernick and the Boston Tea Party, they had an end goal and a desire to see positive change — these bozos just seem to want to proclaim to the world “hey, we don’t see racial inequality as a problem at all!”

Instead of focusing so hard on whomever’s feelings are hurt by some people kneeling, we should focus on the message they’re trying to expose to the world: Oppression based on race is a very real and significant problem. I think the kneelers have done a fantastic job in inspiring a deep, national conversation and real change.

At the end of the day, as a nation, we have to decide what we care about more: the fact that players are kneeling or what exactly they’re kneeling for. After all, if we were able to make progress towards fighting inequality, these players would stop kneeling, right?

 

Contact Tiger Sun at tgsun ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Blue 42 … Take a knee appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/01/blue-42-take-a-knee/feed/ 0 1132252
Confederate controversy https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/18/confederate-controversy/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/18/confederate-controversy/#respond Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:00:05 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1131252 “They’ve forgotten about us.” I don’t remember where I heard this, perhaps somewhere in the small town of Blacksburg, Virginia, but the context was definitely political. The IRS is always out to get our money – of course the government hasn’t forgotten about us, right? But the more I thought about it, the more I […]

The post Confederate controversy appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
“They’ve forgotten about us.”

I don’t remember where I heard this, perhaps somewhere in the small town of Blacksburg, Virginia, but the context was definitely political. The IRS is always out to get our money – of course the government hasn’t forgotten about us, right?

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized the meaning behind that statement. Since the founding days of the United States, a problem has always been the power balance between small states and big states. Presently, this has evolved into the local balance between rural areas and urban areas. I remember hearing in government class how just a dozen or so of the largest cities in the United States could swing the popular vote to one political party and realizing just how valuable the electoral college is to modern politics.

There’s no simple alternative to balancing out protecting the interests of the rural minority and forwarding those of the urban majority. From the U.S. Census: “Rural areas cover 97 percent of the nation’s land area but contain 19.3 percent of the population.” This is a huge disparity; how can state governments look out for rural counties when urban counties dominate the political sphere? For many in southwestern Virginia, it seems that politicians are always subverting rural interests in favor of the dense, northern urban areas.

Even the President and many other conservatives use this idea of rural areas being left out to win votes. From his always-rambunctious Twitter account, Trump proclaimed: “The Democrats in the Southwest part of Virginia have been abandoned by their Party. Republican Ed Gillespie will never let you down!” In a time of great change and technology around the globe, sometimes it can feel as if rural areas are being left behind.

Given this context, I’d like to quickly transition to a discussion about the political frustrations surrounding the Confederate flag. The Civil War was definitely fought over slavery, but does that make the Confederate flag racist? Probably. But I’d also like to consider what the Confederate flag symbolizes to many in the South. Growing up, Confederate flags were never really made out to be a big deal.

I remember thinking nothing of the raised Confederate flags on the way to swim meets and camps. I remember the public outcry throughout the region when the school sent out an announcement banning Confederate attire. Even recently, right before I came to Stanford, I was driving home one night and pulled up next to a beat-up pickup truck flying two large Confederate flags at a traffic light. It felt pretty normal, albeit a little strange especially because of the earlier South Carolina flag controversy and the happenings in Charlottesville. This was the norm. The problem is just how commonplace these provocative items are in the region.

These rural Southerners, a legislative minority, are painted as villains, outcasts for not seeing these items as strange in such an apparently “progressive” society. This is an issue because first off, no one likes being called a villain, and secondly, to many of these people – who have seen crumbling infrastructure, a stagnating economy and skyrocketing health care premiums (one of my older teachers always complained about his wife’s new insurance bill under Obamacare) – are we really that progressive? And how high should working out our flag issues be on our priorities list? Should we be arguing over a flag when there are places with exactly zero professional medical attention? I remember watching the local news and finding out that in nearby Wise County, Virginia, the only time people can receive medical attention is once a year, when a mobile clinic known as the Remove Area Medical arrives. General health is deteriorating every year as lung cancer and obesity set in.

Things really aren’t looking up for the people here. The fact that a colored piece of cloth is generating the most media coverage instead of a terrible healthcare crisis here is a sort of a slap in the face to the coal miner with permanent nerve damage or the diabetic who can’t access insulin. We tend to separate the world into “us” and the “other,” but we fail to realize that the “other” may also be struggling to come to grips with the world too. There are definitely two sides to the argument, and I’m not advocating for any position.

There are many parts of the country that need work. Racism is a huge problem that we need to solve as soon as possible. Denigrating an important bloc of people for the sake of making a point will only divide the nation even more. If we are to move forward and be “progressive,” we need to set aside distractions, unify in our actions and put our attention to the big picture.

 

Contact Tiger Sun at tgsun ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Confederate controversy appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/18/confederate-controversy/feed/ 0 1131252