Editor’s Note: All opinion section content reflects the views of the individual author only and does not represent a stance taken by The Collegian or its editorial board. Letters to the Editor reflect the view of a member of the campus community and are submitted to the publication for approval.

This article by Dr. Sydney Freeman Jr. summarizes the reason why my previous role at Colorado State University will likely be the last time I work on anyone’s college campus. I watched that position for years, joyfully accepted and moved across the country for it. A dream come true at the time.

I was on the most intentionally inclusive team I’ve ever experienced, with people I consider friends to this very moment. But the intentions of a few clearly did not reflect the institution as a whole, especially its leadership.

For the better part of my year there, most of my time, energy and mental capacity were spent dealing with anti-Black racism, both professionally and personally. Here’s what that looked like in real-time:

August 2019

I started the position.

Early September 2019

Students go viral for doing blackface with a “Wakanda forevaa” caption and the highlight of the President Joyce McConnell’s official statement was essentially “due to the first amendment, there’s nothing we can do.”

Late September 2019

Someone writes “ni**er” (in what was believed to be blood and without asterisks) on the wall of a public outdoor bathroom. A bathroom I could see from my desk because it was managed by my department. A marking that could have easily been discovered by anyone, including one of our Black student employees at the time.

As the department’s marketing and communications lead, silence wasn’t an option, so my supervisor and I wrote a statement using a framework from Dr. Rickey Frierson (a friend and Black DEI director).

Within days of this statement’s publishing, it came down the chain of command that all department statements had to be reviewed by the respective vice president’s office and possibly the president’s office. I wonder if that decision was made because we named oppression and racism or stated a firm stance against both. I can’t find any of the full articles about the incident anymore so I guess this one-sentence blurb will have to do.

October 2019

CSU has an annual week of events and presentations called The Symposium for Inclusive Excellence (Diversity Symposium, at the time). During a breakout presentation, the speaker (a staff member) was verbally and visibly flustered from the start. Why? Because an old white man (campus role unknown, but gave me faculty vibes) showed up to argue that Black people “just have low IQs,” citing standardized test research — yes, you read the event date correctly.

That conversation spilled over into disrupting the presentation and demanding the attention of all attendees to make that racist, outdated and false claim. Right on time, he was corrected by the reliable Dr. Rickey Frierson as students (including multiple Black folx) watched in horror/disbelief and I focused on containing my rage. I don’t know if anyone ever submitted a bias incident report, but I didn’t because I was unaware of the option, tired and what reason did I have to believe he would be held accountable?

January 2020

While celebrating a friend’s birthday, a group of us (all Black, mostly university staff and mostly women and queer folx) attempted to enter Tony’s Bar and Rooftop in Old Town Fort Collins. I got in first and after a bathroom break, realized no one else from the group was inside.

Upon walking back outside, it was made clear by the group’s conversation with the bar’s staff that multiple people right behind me were denied entry. After listening to the doorman’s excuses for a minute or so, I could feel my anger bubbling over so I completely removed myself and walked home.

I later learned what happened from those who stayed, stood their ground, asked for explanations and informed the bar staff that these “policies” were overtly racist. Apparently, Tony’s staff rationale went from “no gang colors” to “no rags or bandanas” to “no headbands” and other unwritten “policies” I don’t remember.

Eventually, police showed up, condescendingly belittled my colleagues’ experience, shined lights in their eyes and they were forced to leave the area — inevitably going home. Night ruined, tears shed and trauma endured. I quickly learned that problematic and dangerous incidents are a common occurrence at this particular bar. The Yelp reviews speak for themselves.

Mitchell Holston was one of the primary victims of this racist discrimination, who stood his ground from start to finish. In this brilliant and insightful Facebook post, he fully explains the incident and breaks down how all of the following applied to this situation: systemic racism, stereotypes, respectability politics, apathy of Black folx, and the “some of my best friends are Black” defense. He also shares the necessity of resistance and civic disobedience in these moments.

A bias incident report was submitted, which led to a meeting with the VP of Diversity and Inclusion’s office (rest in peace, Mary Ontiveros). The outcomes of that meeting were typical higher ed responses of “our hands are tied,” “committee” and “we’re talking to the city to address this.” Someone present for the incident shed tears while expressing how clear it was to them that no one but peers cared about their existence and safety.

It was also revealed that months earlier the office’s paid-for and nearly complete marketing initiative to inform the campus about the bias reporting system was put on hold indefinitely after Joyce McConnell took over as president. Not to mention that my triggered response of walking away from that situation to contain rage (understandably) caused rifts between me and the only community of Black folx I had access to.

In the midst of it all…

A group of Black students got organized to protest and demand action. All were Black women. Not Proud to Be was consistent, concise and intentional. They talked and walked. After months of being ignored and belittled by the institution, they demanded a closed-door invite-only meeting with specific campus leaders, including President Joyce McConnell.

They made it clear that the meeting would start on time with doors locked and no one was to be permitted in after. With the meeting live-streamed on Instagram, McConnell was late and missed half or most of the presentation and forum before let inside.

They presented a previously shared list of demands with research and rationale for every single one. They shared experiences of their own and their peers’, including the struggle of trying to make the campus a better place on top of coursework.

Some of the invited leaders asked valuable questions, expressed gratitude, shared insightful feedback and verbally offered support. All I remember of McConnell’s words were repetitions of the same blanket statements about the then recently created “Race, Bias and Equity Initiative.”

A year after that meeting, NPTB shared this video snapshot of their battle at CSU. This webpage describes how the institution has “addressed” student demands.

Another related experience I remember is engaging with students at the first Black Student Activism Conference in February 2020. An undergrad student tearfully shared the experience of taking a semester off to recover from racial battle fatigue and trauma on campus. They have since graduated from CSU and after initially starting grad school there, ultimately completed their graduate education at another institution.

This is just a taste…

These are only the campus-related anti-Black moments I’m aware of during my time at CSU. There were other incidents ignored and swept under the rug while other identity and equity-based initiatives were thwarted and/or co-opted.

Off-campus; Black Lives Matter protesters were beaten during a “pro-police” rally in Fort Collins, local teenagers participated in the “George Floyd Challenge” with smiling faces (no photo in the article) and there’s at least one nearby city that’s basically a sundown town, and so on…

There are people on that campus and in that city giving their all to do incredible work. Nonetheless, the history of support and complacency for racism, bigotry and white supremacy is long and ongoing at Colorado State University, in the city of Fort Collins and in the state of Colorado — a genuine reflection of higher ed as an industry and the United States as a country.

I found out the hard way and I won’t go into the all-time low mental and emotional state this series of traumatic events left me in … but professionally, I struggled to be present, felt stuck in crisis mode and found myself asking: What am I doing here? What am I supporting? Do I really want to be overtly complicit in the apathy hurting my people?

Respectively, the answers were: The opposite of what I know and believe. White supremacy. And hell nah.

Loren Branch

Former assistant director of marketing and communications for CSU’s Campus Recreation department

Send letters to letters@collegian.com. When submitting letters, please abide by the guidelines listed at collegian.com.

Dylan Burkett/The Cougar

Period tracking apps are losing high volumes of users due to potentially selling their data. 

With the overturning of Roe v. Wade, several states are planning to severely limit or completely ban abortion. While some states still offer protection and provide abortion services, many red states are quickly implementing laws outlawing the procedure. 

Texas is one of those few red states with an implemented ban on abortion. Their infamous trigger ban at 6 weeks was planned to shift to a complete ban in 30 days but a judge ruled that abortions can still occur. 

With abortion now considered a criminal charge in some places, many Americans are deleting their tracking apps despite promises from companies to protect user data.

The Flo app has over 43 million users while the popular Clue app has over 12 million users. Despite their popularity, these numbers have been swiftly dwindling for the past month. 

Over a third of American citizens who experience periods currently, or have, used a period tracking app to log cycles, track fertility windows and monitor pregnancies. 

To add on, with companies implementing third-party trackers, many Americans worry their data will be used against them if brought to court.

Flo, the most used period tracking app, has since released a statement claiming it will be releasing an anonymous mode for users that would no longer have their personal information linked to their account.

However, many users are wary of the company since it was involved in a scandal last year over selling user information.

Meanwhile, Clue promises to keep user information private as they are not under American jurisdiction; however, lawmakers claim if the information is requested as evidence for a court ruling, the company will more than likely comply. 

Director of Fight for the Future Evan Greer warns that being on any app that sells user data and tracks location can be used in a hearing. 

With that in mind just deleting your period tracker may not be enough. 

Moreover, states like Texas are incentivizing citizens to report both each other and medical practitioners for getting or administering an abortion. 

Payments starting at just $10,000 are being offered to citizens who can successfully convict and sue an abortion provider.

Yet, not all is lost for those who do not want to part with period tracking apps.

Consumer reports investigated different period tracking apps to find which provide the most security for users, and the results offer a variety of options.

Out of all the period tracking apps with more than 100,000 installs, only Fertility Friend avoided using third-party trackers. However, the data is stored in the cloud, making it vulnerable and useable for court cases.

Other apps that stored data locally and avoided using third-party trackers were Drip, Euki and Periodical. However, these apps are mostly found on android devices, though Drip plans to release an iOS version in August of 2022. 

Despite this, Americans are still advised to delete period tracking apps off their phones, especially if they are residents in states such as Texas which have completely banned abortion. 

Though, for those still wanting to use an app, Drip, Euki and Periodical are safe options. 

However, Americans should not be responsible for the lack of privacy the apps offer and should not feel required to remove the apps from their phones.

Apps like Drip show that it is possible to create reliable and valid data for users without putting privacy at risk or profiting off these users’ fears.

Instead, companies should be the ones making a change, especially if they are wanting to keep their users.

The health of Americans’ should be kept safe and private without the interference of government and third-party trackers. 

Sarah Elise Shea is a freshman English literature major who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Period tracking apps should focus on protecting user data” was originally posted on The Cougar

APK/Wikimedia Commons

On June 24, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization resulted in the overturning of nearly 50 years of precedent since Roe v. Wade. Many may have predicted this result as a product of a Roberts court mostly filled by Republican presidents or the rare leak of Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion. However, the implications of the ruling remain confusing and impactful. 

For centuries, the Supreme Court has remained an example to many of true justice and American exceptionalism, but it may just be beginning to flex its revisionist muscle. Such dominance may be a win for social Conservatism, but I remain skeptical of conservative judicial philosophy being displayed by the Dobbs decision. For a group that has historically embraced a love for constitutional law and respect for the precedent of the court, Alito’s opinion sounds a bit radical by conservative standards. The Conservative wing of the court has evidently begun its redesign of the past century of precedent.

Firstly, the Conservative dominance of the court points toward a nearly unstoppable stretch of true legal influence for veteran justices that, prior to Trump’s most recent appointments, were forced to spar with the scrappy pushback of a decorated living document-minded liberal wing of the court. As opposed to the originalist philosophy of more conservative judges, liberal jurists are most likely to see the Constitution as able to be interpreted, changing with society. With Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, the nearly unregulated body has no motivation to refrain from advancing more Conservative opinions into the foreseeable future — such as restricting gay marriage and other forms of contraception. This fact is one worth paying attention to, as such a divided court has not existed in recent history.

Let’s define some terms before we dive too deeply into the argument. For the purposes of this piece, small-c “conservative” will refer to those specifically with the belief that society shifts slowly and naturally. These traditional conservatives believe that society is too complex to sculpt manually and that drastic changes often come with unintended consequences. Alternatively, big-C “Conservatism” is more closely affiliated with a national party or movement; in this case, the U.S. Republican Party. Conservatism is more likely to be connected to social and religious values, differing from, say, Burkean conservatism, which is centered around an opposition toward overzealous policy. Nowhere in my argument will I make any qualitative judgments toward either ideology; I seek only to tie actions to the facts of these descriptions. The difference between the two types of conservatives, however, is often tied to how justices determine to rule based on their unique philosophies of judgment.

Judicial philosophy is ideally completely disconnected from personal political ideology. I could be staunchly pro-choice, but if I believed in judging as a constitutional originalist, then I might have dissented against the original Roe v. Wade ruling on the basis that there is no amendment that says “the right of the people to have an abortion, shall not be infringed” in the way there is one to “bear arms.” The exact same consistency of jurisprudence, the stable legal philosophy of its jurists, should be expected on the other side of the aisle and has often been championed by conservative Justices Scalia and Thomas. In Florida v. Jardines, a case investigating the arrest of a man caught growing marijuana by a police dog who stepped onto the man’s property before signaling the presence of the drug, Scalia and Thomas concurred with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonya Sotomayor, opposing their fellow conservatives’ belief that the search was lawful. Due to this high-level degree of judicial integrity being displayed in former cases, I am wary of the most recent court’s decision to overturn Roe. 

Stare decisis, or the principle of following precedent, is a key element of consistency in judicial rulings at any level. Judges are supposed to factor in past rulings when issuing their opinions. Without precedent, each case could fall unpredictably whenever a new court is established. The only way that the public is to maintain trust in the court is to believe in jurisprudence. When judges rule invariably, legal activism is minimized. However, as is unusual for the Supreme Court, no true regulation exists to ensure such trustworthiness. They can rule however they want. 

In Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion, he celebrates (133) that “After today’s decision, the nine Members of this Court will no longer decide the basic legality of pre-viability abortion for all 330 million Americans.” While conservative values could lead a judge to justify the decision to overturn under an argument of small government and state’s rights, the recent revelation seems more likely to be a product of the court’s ideological majority. Even if the concurring justices claim to be acting in goodwill, insisting that the Constitution is neither pro-choice nor pro-life, I can’t help but agree with the dissenting opinion of Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, when they claim that “the Court reverses course today for one reason and one reason only: because the composition of this Court has changed.” For these reasons, we seem to be at the mercy of monarchs with robes and gavels.

As options for abortion and other recently enacted rights begin changing under this court, legislation becomes more important than ever. If this country is to join 64 others worldwide in offering safe, legal abortions, then it must do so through a constitutional amendment. Now is the time for actionable improvement. Rather than express dissatisfaction with the decision, all there is left to do is to volunteer and vote for local leaders. Until Congress garners enough support to pass national abortion laws, we will be living in a post-Roe country. The court has forced its hand, and the burden now falls on our lawmakers.

Ben Brodsky (25C) is from Scottsdale, Arizona.

The post The Supreme Court has begun redesigning a century of precedent, breaking from judiciary tradition appeared first on The Emory Wheel.

Kyrie Irving, James Harden, Ben Simmons forever change NBA

Erik Drost/Creative Commons

(Photo by Erik Drost under CC BY 2.0)

LeBron James shocked the world with his move to the Miami Heat — especially how it played out live on ESPN. This is something no league has ever witnessed. Beyond that, Kevin Durant turned the essence of competitive spirit upside down after he joined the 73-9 Golden State Warriors. Kawhi Leonard decided to team up with Paul George one random morning at 3 a.m.

Player movement is at its peak. The top-tier superstars can practically go and play wherever they want, whenever they want and however much they want. All of this freedom is hanging in the balance because of the actions of three All-NBA players: Kyrie Irving, James Harden and Ben Simmons.

As sports television personality Stephen Smith has repeatedly said, “These owners are coming.”

The 30 governors within the NBA will no longer put up with these selfish superstars who fail to put the “we” over the “me” — superstars who want complete autonomy over the games that they play while getting paid top dollar in the process (i.e. Irving). What’s more, Irving refused to adhere to the health and safety guidelines put in place.

Not only was the mandate put in place for him, but it was put in place for millions of other Americans as well. Yet unlike the masses, Irving brings home millions of dollars every year, affording him the luxury to remain unvaccinated. In the process, though, he’s hurting his team with his absence.

Owners will no longer risk their organizations’ future in order to have one of the superstars force their way to the next organization the second things get rough (i.e. Harden). This past season, Harden puppeteered his way to his third team in four years. After the 2020 rendition of the Houston Rockets, everything seemed to go south, and fast.

Harden had no interest in sticking around for a rebuild. He made his way to the Brooklyn Nets; He, Irving and Durant were supposed to be the next big super team of this era following Durant’s departure from Golden State. However, in the two seasons with the Nets, we only saw this big three on the court together for a total of 16 games.

Teams will no longer allow players to sit on the bench the entire season and refuse to work with team doctors while recouping 100% of their contract (i.e. Simmons). Let me give you this scenario: I’m a surgeon and you’re my boss. Let’s say I refused to show up to work and perform any surgeries, but I am demanding to still get paid in full. Beyond that, if you deny me full compensation then, you know what, I’m going to sue you.

This scenario is more or less what Simmons did to the Philadelphia 76ers. Simmons did cite mental health as the reason for his absence, but he refused to work with any team doctors, refused to show up to practice and would not communicate with teammates, coaches or executives.

Simmons now finds himself in Brooklyn. It’s almost funny how all this comes back to the Nets. All these problems are landing right in the lap of Durant. Durant himself has said “enough” as he requested a trade away from the drama-infused Nets. Now, imagine what the owners are going to say when it’s their turn. In the end, they’re the ones cashing all the checks.

The current collective bargaining agreement was signed back in 2017 and is set to officially expire after the 2023-2024 season. The National Basketball Players Association and team governors come together every so often to revise the terms and conditions of employment. It is almost certain that when the time comes — when all 30 owners and player representatives are sitting at a conference table at some fancy hotel — Simmons, Harden and Irving will be at the top of the agenda.

For decades, the NBA has been a players league. Opposite to the NFL, the players hold the power. If these players aren’t careful and more thoughtful about their decisions, they’re going to relinquish their power back to the owners.

Ethan Scott is a Bear Bytes Blog writer. Contact him at escott@dailycal.org.

The Daily Californian

Watch Everything Everywhere All at Once Online Free Streaming at Home Here’s How

Bingo Movie! Here’s options for downloading or watching Everything Everywhere All At Once streaming the full movie online for free on 123movies & Reddit with English sub-titles & dubbing, including where to watch the new multiverse movie at home. Is Everything Everywhere All At Once available to stream? Is watching Everything Everywhere All At Once on Disney Plus, HBO Max, Netflix, or Amazon Prime? Yes, we have found an authentic streaming option / service.

Who’s ready for a summer of weird movies? A24 is starting the season off right with Everything Everywhere All At Once, the new indie sci-fi comedy from filmmakers Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, aka The Daniels.

Starring acclaimed actress Michelle Yeoh, the movie follows a woman named Evelyn Wang (Yeoh) who unexpectedly finds herself hopping through her other lives in the multiverse. If you thought three Spider-Mans was a lot, just you wait—Peter Parker has nothing on Evelyn Wang.

Also starring Ke Huy Quan, Stephanie Hsu, Jenny Slate, Harry Shum Jr., James Hong, and Jamie Lee Curtis, Everything Everywhere All At Once premiered last week at the 2022 South by Southwest Film Festival to overwhelmingly positive reviews. You don’t want to miss it, so here’s what you need to know about where to watch the Everything Everywhere movie and when to expect Everything Everywhere All At Once on streaming.

Everything Everywhere All at Once Release Date

Fans won’t have to wait much longer for Everything Everywhere All at Once, as the movie is set to be released exclusively in movie theaters on Friday, March 25, in the US.

It should be noted, however, March 25 is a limited release, with the movie opening up in select cities (check your local theaters’ websites or Fandango), with it expanding everywhere April 8. International release dates vary (i.e. a UK date is still to be announced).

Where to Watch Everything Everywhere All at Once Online

Right Now, the Only Place to Watch Everything Everywhere All at Once Is in a Movie Theater When the Film Opens in Select Theaters on March 25, and in More Theaters Nationwide in the U.s. on April 8. You Can Find a Showing near You Here. After the Film’s Theatrical Run, You’ll Be Able to Purchase the Movie on Digital Platforms Like Itunes, Amazon, Google Play, Youtube, and Vudu.

Is Everything Everywhere All at Once on Netflix?

No. It’s Possible That Everything Everywhere All at Once Will Be on Netflix Someday, Given That the Streaming Service Hosts a Number of A24 Films, Including Uncut Gems. but There’s No Guarantee. If You Don’t Want to Miss the Film, Your Best Bet Is to See Everything Everywhere All at Once in a Movie Theater or Wait to Rent It for $19.99.

Is Everything Everywhere All At Once on Disney+?

No, sorry. Disney recently made a deal with Sony to bring Spider-Man and other Marvel properties to Disney+ after the movies are initially released on Netflix, but that deal begins with Sony’s 2022 releases. It’s currently unclear whether Venom and other older Sony films featuring Marvel characters will head to the House of Mouse’s streamer eventually.

Will Everything Everywhere All at Once Be on Hbo Max?

No. Everything Everywhere All at Once Will Not Be on Hbo Max, Because Everything Everywhere All at Once Is an A24 Film and Not a Warner Bros. Film. Also, Hbo Max Will No Longer Be Streaming Theatrical Movies in 2022. (Last Year, Warner Bros. Opted to Simultaneously Release Its Theatrical Slate on Streaming, Meaning Hbo Max Subscribers Could Watch Movies Like Matrix Resurrections at Home. This Year, However, Warner Bros. Theatrical Movies Will Have a 45-Day Theaters-Only Run Before Moving to Hbo Max.) It’s Possible That X Will Be on Hbo and Hbo Max Someday, but It Will Not Be Any Time Soon.

Will Everything Everywhere All At Once on Hulu?

No, ‘Everything Everywhere All At Once’ is not available on Hulu. However, don’t let it stop you from exploring other Marvel shows that are available on the streamer, such as ‘Legion‘ and ‘Cloak & Dagger.’

Will Everything Everywhere All At Once on Amazon Prime Video?

Amazon Prime subscribers will have to look for the superhero series elsewhere as it is not available on the streaming giant. For those looking for alternatives on the platform, we recommend you watch ‘The Boys‘ and ‘The Tick.’

When Will the Everything Everywhere Movie Be Streaming?

the Everything Everywhere All at Once Digital Release Date Has Not Yet Been Announced. It’s Hard to Say When Everything Everywhere All at Once, Which Is an A24 Release, Will Come to Digital. but We Can Make an Educated Guess Based on Previous A24 Releases.

One Recent A24 Theatrical Release, Red Rocket, Became Available to Rent for $19.99 on Digital Platforms After About Two Months—aka 45 Days, Which Is More or Less the New Standard Theatrical Window Since the Pandemic—in Theaters. If Everything Everywhere All at Once Follows a Similar Release Strategy, You May Be Able to Rent the Movie for $19.99 Around Mid-May 2022.

on the Other Hand, Another Recent A24 Theatrical Release, C’mon C’mon, Came to Vod After Only One Month in Theaters—so Maybe You Won’t Have to Wait That Long. Stay Tuned for the Official Everything Everywhere All at Once Digital Release Date.

Everything Everywhere All at Once reviews

Everything Everywhere All at Once appears to be critic’s hit. The movie is currently (as of March 24) scoring a 96% “Fresh” on Rotten Tomatoes, as well as an 82 on Metacritic, earning the site’s “must-see” designation.

What to Watch will have its own review of Everything Everywhere All at Once soon, so keep an eye out for that.

Everything Everywhere All at Once Cast

• The cast of Everything Everywhere All At Once features:
• Michelle Yeoh as Evelyn Wang
• Ke Huy Quan as Waymond Wang
• Stephanie Hsu as Joy Wang
• James Hong as Gong Gong Wang
• Harry Shum Jr. as Chad
• Jenny Slate as Big Nose

And last but not least, Scream Queens actress Jamie Lee Curtis stars as Deirdre Beaubeirdra in this mind-bending feature.

Trust us when we say you’re going to like this movie a lot, so be sure to catch the premiere at your local theater on Friday, Apr. 8!

The Daily Californian

Dylan Burkett/The Cougar

Many queer women have had their experience belittled because of the stereotypes attached to how they look. Since they do not look or act in the way society views people who are a part of the LGBTQ+ community, they are not taken seriously. 

This is a struggle many women of the community have faced for decades. It’s wrong and potentially dangerous.

It needs to stop. 

Feminine queer women are more than just the clothes they wear or the interests they have. 

The LGBTQ+ community is becoming increasingly diverse and more complex as more people have been coming out in a much safer atmosphere. 

For many queer women that may not fit into society’s narrative of how queer women should look, their stories are pushed to the side and are treated as a joke. There is a wide range of stories just waiting to be heard but because of society’s traditional views, none of them are being shared. 

Anyone who identifies as part of the community or is more in tune with their femininity is often dismissed. Their stories aren’t heard because they’re considered too pretty to have anything valuable to contribute. 

Because of this, they are constant targets of the male gaze because they are acceptable in society due to their feminine attributes but are worth nothing when it comes to contributing to a conversation. 

We see this in many forms of pop culture. 

An example can be the hit television show “Degrassi,” where there was an array of LGBTQ+ representation. 

Recurring character Fiona Coyne, who comes out as a lesbian, was often considered a so-called lipstick lesbian by fellow classmates due to her feminine gender attributes such as wearing makeup, dresses, or skirts and having other characteristics associated with feminine women.

Later on, she has interest in pursuing fashion and eventually attends school in Italy. Throughout Fiona’s time on the show, we can see her being targeted primarily by her male classmates as she enters a relationship with a woman who has similar attributes to Fiona. 

While this plot is for entertainment purposes, this story represents someone’s story. 

This constant over-sexualization and judgment invalidates young LGBTQ+ women. 

Their stories and experiences are rejected left and right. The unwanted gaze from people is unacceptable and won’t be tolerable. 

A queer woman who identifies as a lesbian should not be belittled for liking popular culture trends like Taylor Swift and upcoming fashion. They do not owe anyone a queer physical presentation.

“Your experiences are valid and your emotions are valid no matter what anyone tells you,” said senior psychology major Sophia.

“Unfortunately, we live in a society that treats girls and women, especially queer women, like second-class citizens,” she said. “When we try to speak out about the abuse we experience, we are victim-blamed, accused of lying or told that it isn’t a big deal. But there are people out there who will listen to you and believe you. I believe you.”

For those who have openly shared their stories, never feel like your stories and experiences aren’t valid because they are.

There are people and safe spaces who will commend you for sharing and unapologetically being yourselves. 

Saira Haque is an anthropology senior who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Queer women are often belittled, not taken seriously” was originally posted on The Cougar

‘A serious setback’: Supreme Court sides with West Virginia in West Virginia v. EPA

Joe Ravi/Creative Commons

The Supreme Court ruled against the EPA in West Virginia v. EPA, causing climate concerns related to carbon emissions to surge.

The United States Supreme Court sided with West Virginia in West Virginia v. EPA on Thursday, stating that the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, overstepped in its interpretation of the Clean Air Act, or CAA.

In a 6-3 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts issuing the majority opinion, the court effectively ruled former President Barack Obama’s 2015 Clean Power Plan — which established guidelines for states to limit carbon emissions from existing power plants — invalid. This limited the EPA’s ability to regulate coal-fired power plants. 

“California will remain the tentpole for this movement with record investments and aggressive policies to reduce pollution, to protect people from extreme weather, and to leave our children and grandchildren a world that’s better off than we found it,” said California Gov. Gavin Newsom in a press release.

California’s climate action plans will remain in place, as the state is already ahead of its targets.

EPA administrator Michael Regan also issued a statement in response to the ruling, stating that he was “deeply disappointed,” but that the EPA will remain committed to using the full breadth of its legal authorities in order to mitigate the effects of climate change.

This disappointment is shared by UC Berkeley Sho Sato law professor Daniel Farber and his colleagues. In an analysis, however, Farber noted that the ruling was “more than a flesh wound” but not fatal.

Farber added that the majority opinion still allows the EPA other options to regulate coal-fired power plants.

“What the court said was that EPA would have to come up with something that was more limited, focusing on individuals,” Farber said. “But there are some things that I think EPA can do at the level of the individual power plant that would make up the difference.”

In his analysis, Farber also noted that prior to the ruling, the Clean Power Plan was already “dead in all but name.” It was also repealed by former President Donald Trump, who had adopted an even more conservative interpretation of the section about the CAA, Farber said in the analysis.

Farber added that West Virginia v. EPA was not a constitutional ruling, but rather based on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the CAA. However, Congress can change the law to restore the EPA’s power, according to Farber.

“Some people are portraying it as a huge disaster; I don’t think it’s as bad as that,” Farber said. “It’s a serious setback, but it’s one that we can move past.”

Contact Amber X. Chen at amberchen@dailycal.org, and follow her on Twitter at @amberonradio.

The Daily Californian

Spots to cool off in Berkeley

Amanda Tsang/File

With summer comes unbelievable heat. We’ve all been there, melting from the hot air without air conditioning. Sitting there craving an escape. That is why the Daily Clog has compiled a list of some of the best ways to cool off near Berkeley. With many options for different people, here is your guide to staying refreshed this summer!

Strawberry Canyon Pool

Close to the UC Berkeley campus, the Strawberry Canyon Pool is a great option for those looking to take a dip in the water. For a small entrance fee, anyone can come to this large community pool. There’s lots of sun chairs for sitting and places to lay out your towel, so bring a book and a snack to make a day of it. Although it’s a bit of a hike to get there, the brisk water is worth the walk. For those really sweltering days, this option really is a lifesaver.

Baker Beach

If you’re more of a beach person, this is the perfect choice. Despite the 45-minute drive, you can’t go wrong with the beautiful view of the city, the Golden Gate Bridge and the ocean. The water temperature is generally very chilly, so prepare yourself to really cool off here. Coming for sunset is also a great choice. Bring a sweater and enjoy the breeze as you watch the captivating views from right on the beach. Either way, you’re sure to feel revived and relax while hanging out at this popular spot.

Water parks

If you’re looking to spend some cash, there are several water parks right here in the Bay Area. With many options full of exciting water rides, you’re sure to find the perfect park for you. There’s several ones ranging from Concord, San Jose and Fremont. Look up their websites and you’re sure to be enticed by the promise of a fun and water filled day. Pack a lunch and some sunscreen, and let your inner child let loose for the day.

The library

Going to the library may not be your first thought when thinking of how to cool off, but it really is the perfect option. The campus libraries are regularly kept chilly by air conditioning and you’re out of the sun and staying indoors. Since there are fewer students taking up space cramming for exams, you might even find a comfy chair to sit in. Even the Berkeley Public Library is a great option near restaurants and other activities. Bring a book or your laptop and take in the air conditioning for a couple hours.

No one wants to be uncomfortably hot all day, so take some time to stay refreshed at one of these lovely spots this summer!

Contact Maya Romero at mromero@dailycal.org.

The Daily Californian

Iqra Rafey/The Cougar

In today’s fast-paced society, we tend to overlook the news which leads us to become unaware of some of the most critical social and political issues. 

Politicians seem to care less about the people they are representing and more about reelection campaigns. 

With this comes a sense of helplessness but the key to overcoming an injustice system is gaining intentional knowledge and knowing how to use it. 

With a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled to strike down Roe V. Wade, making it the first court in history to take away a constitutional right. 

In the same opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas also stated that the court should visit back on its decisions on contraceptives and same-sex marriages.

The U.S. Senate reached a bipartisan agreement this week, which is the most serious gun-control law, that has been reached. The House of Representatives also approved the bill and has been signed by President Joe Biden. 

However, the Supreme Court renounced this new law with its decision to strick down the New York law to conceal its handgun law. 

On the other side of the world, there is still a war going on in Ukraine with Russian forces attacking the country. The Russian forces recently attacked a mall, which left at least 18 dead. 

Last week, the Supreme Court also gutted Miranda rights. The court said that the law enforcement could use the testimony of the person they arrested, prior to reading their Miranda Rights, which lists the rights you have while you are being arrested. 

The court is also hearing a case, West Virginia v. The Environmental Protection Agency, related to climate change. This case will decide on how much power the federal government has on controlling greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

Based on their decision it could completely alter upcoming environmental policies. 

The past few years, in particular, have felt out of a history textbook. However, these political and social events are more than a social media post or a fun day of protesting. 

Not only as college students but as the generation that represents the future of our world, we should think critically, pay attention to the news and be open to new and challenging opinions. 

In real-time, people who can get pregnant are having their rights over bodily autonomy taken away which has given the Supreme Court confidence to challenge several court precedents regarding contraceptives and same-sex marriage. 

This is frightening. 

Continuing with the daily motions of life with a global pandemic, a human rights crisis and the threats of war around the world can and will lead to burnout. 

We need to take care of ourselves, our friends and our families. During these times, having intentional and international knowledge is the best thing you can do. 

Be intentional about listening and speaking out. Do not condition yourself to speak out only when bad things happen. Activism is a constant practice. 

Knowledge is power and when history is happening right in front of your eyes, it becomes your arsenal as well. 

Atirikta Kumar is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.

—
“Students should be intentional with their knowledge” was originally posted on The Cougar

On June 24, the pro-life movement secured a long-awaited triumph: The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center opened the door for far more restrictive abortion laws than had previously been permitted by the courts.

This is the culmination of a long battle. Opponents of abortion have spent decades building a social movement and engaging in legal strategizing. The pro-life movement’s most radical elements have even resorted to arson, murder and fetus theft.

Supporters of reproductive freedom will likely have to work for a long time to reverse this rollback in human rights.

However, we do have a couple of advantages over the pro-life movement of the early 1970s. First of all, Americans’ views on abortion are more partisan than they were back then. Second of all, the Democratic party holds a great deal of political power and can use it to protect the right to choose. This will be the key going forward. Overturning Roe took decades — but what can pro-choice leaders do right now?

The purpose of this op-ed is not to re-hash whether the Court’s decision was correct or incorrect. Many others have analyzed and critiqued the decision’s legal rationale, as well as its implications for health and for gender equality. Here, I’m preaching to the choir: what can be done right now by pro-choice leaders to alleviate the effects of this decision?

A clear — and overdue — move would be to regulate crisis pregnancy centers. Organizations like First Care in Prospect Park or Abria on campus offer to help people with an unplanned pregnancy.

However, the goal of these groups is not to inform people of all their options — it’s to dissuade them from getting an abortion. A 2018 article in the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics described these centers as “Legal but Unethical.”

This is because they are not licensed like real healthcare facilities are. “Although crisis pregnancy centers enjoy First Amendment rights protections,” the doctors who wrote the article explained, “their propagation of misinformation should be regarded as an ethical violation that undermines women’s health.”

The article also outlines how many of these centers have been found to propagate misleading information, like falsely suggesting a link between abortion and later mental health problems. A recent NBC News investigation of these centers in Texas backs this up. NBC also found that these centers falsely implied that abortion could cause cancer or infertility. Nationwide, there are about three times as many of these centers as there are abortion clinics.

I’m not an expert on First Amendment law, but it seems reasonable that the government could prevent the spread of medical misinformation from groups that present themselves as health facilities.

Recently, two abortion doctors argued in the LA Times that crisis pregnancy centers should be regulated under consumer protection laws. Laws have been proposed in several states that, if passed, would crack down on these fake healthcare facilities. These include Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and New York (where the measure has been signed into law by the governor). There’s also a federal bill called the Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act.

There are many other things pro-choice leaders can do besides just regulating so-called crisis pregnancy centers. Attorney General Merrick Garland has said he thinks it’s illegal for states to ban an FDA-approved abortion pill if they disagree about its safety or effectiveness. While this effort may run into the FDA’s own policies, it’d be worthwhile for the Biden administration to see if those policies can be changed.

It’s also disappointing that the administration has dismissed the idea of opening abortion clinics on federal or tribal lands. While this idea could run into issues with legality and indigenous sovereignty, in this time of crisis, it’s important to explore this idea further to see if it can be done while respecting the law and the rights of indigenous people.

Given that some opponents of abortion rights are planning to prosecute people who cross state lines to seek abortion care, it’s imperative that blue-state and federal leaders do everything they can to protect those people’s rights. For instance, Gov. Tim Walz has ordered that Minnesota law enforcement not help other states prosecute people who come here to get a legal abortion.

Americans’ hard-won reproductive freedom is in crisis. We need to be building a long-term movement and plan to get the right to abortion back — but we also need to do what we can right now.