On this episode of the Emerald Podcast Network, Mathew Brock and Eric Schucht discuss the differences between video game remakes, remasters and ports. Their discussion covers such classics as Starcraft to Crash Bandicoot and includes their favorite and least liked modern adaptations of nostalgic, classic games.n this episode of the Emerald Podcast Network, Mathew Brock and Eric Schucht discuss the differences between video game remakes, remasters and ports. Their discussion covers such classics as Starcraft to Crash Bandicoot and includes their favorite and least liked modern adaptations of nostalgic, classic games.
It’s been an up and down year for free speech at the University of Oregon.
On the one hand, demonstrations have abounded. A march spurred on a moment’s notice on election night and students’ voices rang through the early morning. Students continued to gather for days, and this culminated in the massive women’s march after inauguration day. Interspersed between such mobilizations were demonstrations at Johnson Hall over all sorts of issues.
But there have been shortcomings as well. Nancy Shurtz, who donned ‘well-intended’ blackface at a Halloween party, received campus-wide backlash from students and faculty, and not long after, high school students were found on campus wearing blackface as well. These two instances were reinvigorated after “Genocide Jimmy” and Chad showed up on campus, complete with a swastika-covered van and slur-covered sign.
This event, in particular, occurred in light of several others. First, as the Anti-Defamation League has found, anti-semitic incidents in the United States have grown by 86 percent in just the first quarter of 2017. Similarly, this event arises after UC Berkeley rioted to protest the arrival of Milo Yiannopoulos and filed a lawsuit to attempt to prevent conservative pundit Ann Coulter from speaking at the school. Both of these events find themselves dueling with an old, controversial foe: the First Amendment.
For many Americans, the First Amendment is held religiously: when faced with the demons of censorship, violence and suppression, they pray to their sacred parchment and freedom descends from above. But the First Amendment is a difficult line to toe due to the fact that it cannot be inclusive or exclusory in any regard — everyone gets the same blanket deal.
The white nationalist incident is a prime example. While students may have felt the presence of such hate speech to be toxic and necessitate a forced removal, no such action is possible without also forcing April’s LGBTQA3 protesters at Johnson Hall to be removed. While drawn around severely different circumstances, protecting the right to protest of one group simultaneously protects the right of the other — no exceptions. Any attempt to favor one group over another paves the way for favoritism to occur, only in the reverse circumstances.
In this regard, “the confusion is that in placing limits on speech we privilege physical over emotional harm,” wrote Thane Rosenbuam, a fellow at New York University, in a 2014 essay.
Indeed, the First Amendment — as it currently stands and has been interpreted historically — has bent toward the acceptance that if there is no physical harm involved, it isn’t in violation of the First Amendment (except, of course, in the cases of slander and libel). But as Rosenbaum explains, the act of speech — more specifically, anyone’s definition of ‘hate speech’ — can oftentimes present unmitigated emotional damage and trauma.
This is once again illustrated by the University of Oregon’s fiasco with Nancy Shurtz. Shurtz, who donned blackface at a private Halloween party last year, received attention from students, the media and the administration, who in an email to the student population, deemed “…that her actions had a negative impact on the university’s learning environment and constituted harassment under the UO’s anti discrimination policies.”
The campus community garnered 1,200 signatures on a petition for Shurtz’s resignation and the university subsequently put Shurtz on paid leave, leading FIRE to mark UO as one of the worst campuses in the country for free speech. Yet white nationalists (or neo-nazis) arrived on campus with a racial slur and a swastika and the administration has been silent on the subject. In one instance, the university’s hands are tied regarding a white supremacist message peacefully protesting on campus, while in another, they deemed Nancy Shurtz’s free actions as inadmissible and damaging to the “university’s learning environment.”
It would appear that the university itself had a difficult time acknowledging the social trauma of traditionally destructive speech and, simultaneously, understanding how to intervene in — or acknowledge — the presence of ill-intentioned white supremacy.
The simple fact of the matter is that Shurtz’s punishment was, to some, a deliberate encroachment of free speech, no matter how “hateful.” It is, however, protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. If that doesn’t sit well, that’s perhaps because the constitution itself doesn’t acknowledge social and emotional trauma through such use of free speech.
Rosenbaum cites countries like Israel and France, which in law ban the use of Nazi paraphernalia or speech, as examples of countries without an immutable blanket on free speech.
“To Americans, these actions in France and Israel seem positively undemocratic,” Rosenbaum writes.
It’s this line of thought that has halted the United States’ action on free speech for centuries. The motivation today for halting such nationalist demonstrations as Jimmy and Chad’s have been used historically to try and halt the speech of the Civil Rights Movement — then seen as hate speech toward white southerners. In the face of free speech, making exceptions for one group always seems to produce an opportunity for regretful repercussions.
But as students gathered, a protest formed and a rabbi danced, leading Jimmy and Chad to leave campus. Shurtz, even without an administrative intervention, received severe backlash for her actions. In these instances, the social trauma swelled back in a wave of intolerance for such ideas. The social high ground was captured by the majority.
Is this meant to be the purpose of free speech? For the morally upright ideals to outlive the hateful ones because of a lack of legal restriction?
The answer to those questions is to tolerate such hateful speech and actions, if not socially then at the bare minimum legally. The administration did not address the event with force as it did with Nancy Shurtz because the power of free speech condones the demonstration (although it does lead to questionable leadership in situations such as Shurtz’s). But as students feel the social and emotional trauma of such actions, perhaps it’s time to realize that the First Amendment is good at doing its job. And perhaps that’s precisely the problem.
Today is Saturday, May 13. Here are the biggest stories from this week: the proposed 10.6-percent tuition hike was voted down in Salem; the four finalists for the renaming of Cedar Hall (formerly Dunn Hall) have been announced; and the Portland Senior Experience has been suspended for the School of Journalism and Communication. Listen about all this in this weekly news wrap-up from the Emerald Podcast Network.
This episode was produced by Emerson Malone. Special thanks to Dikembe Mutombo.
Students trickle into an empty classroom and shed their jackets, revealing their T-shirts. One shows a rainbow campaign logo stating “Make America great and Gay again,” and others walk in wearing bright red Make America Great Again hats. Many compliment their friends’ regalia as it is uncloaked, and a few mention how grateful they were to cross campus without being insulted or having a confrontation.
The event is the weekly meeting of the University of Oregon College Republicans, or CRs. Members say turnout for the meetings has grown from averaging 12 students in the past to around 30 after Donald Trump’s election. Members of the CRs say one of the hardest parts about being in the group is the negative connotation that surrounds the phrase “conservative on campus.” In some cases, it can be the difference between having friends or not.
“I would guess that maybe 20 to 30 percent of people on campus are Republicans,” said Trent Capurro, a sophomore political science major and the recruiting director for the College Republicans. “A lot of people feel that they do have to hide it to preserve friendships.”
Trent Capurro is a college Republican at the University of Oregon. (Samuel Marshall/Emerald)
While UO claims to fight for inclusivity and openness, many conservative and Republican students on campus say they feel their political views are stifled. They are a political minority in many classrooms throughout campus, and it’s not unusual for them to hear comments and threats from other students when they’re wearing something that reflects their conservative viewpoints.
The College Republicans’ table sits outside the EMU twice a week, and club members staffing the booth say they frequently experience verbal harassment in an atmosphere that makes them feel unwelcome.
Conservative students say they are not just harassed, they also say they are misunderstood. Many, for instance, did not support Donald Trump and backed other Republican presidential candidates. What’s more, they say they are frequently labeled as white supremacists and fascists, even though the club includes students of color, international students and members of the LGBTQIA+ community.
According to a four-year study from the UO Office of Institutional Research, 81.3 percent of conservative students on campus feel valued as an individual. In the same study, however, only 44.5 percent of polled conservative students feel their political beliefs are respected on campus, making 2016 the lowest percentage in the four-year span. In comparison, 92.8 percent of liberals polled feel that their beliefs are respected on campus.
“Do I feel like I have free speech? Yes,” said Justin Myhre, a junior journalism major and the chairman for the College Republicans. “Do I feel like they want to take it away from me? Sometimes.”
College Republicans face positive reactions too. Some students give a thumbs up or state their approval with a “keep doing what you’re doing.” As their tabling sessions reveal, Republicans on campus — when not facing harassment — are often met with incredulity, further driving the club’s mission to open themselves to the public and rebrand themselves in the eyes of the student body.
“I met a guy today who came by and was like, ‘Wow, you guys are actually out here? You have balls.’ Why note that? This is a diverse campus, right? We are all treated equally, why is it so strange that I’m out here?” Myhre said.
Myhre explained that while constellating under the banner of “Republican,” the club’s diversity of experiences and cultures helps provide knowledge and an optimistic future.
“There’s LGBT members, there’s people of color, international students — I love that,” Myhre told the Emerald in February. “That’s where all the knowledge is. They help us flourish. Without them, we wouldn’t be a club. We’d just be a bunch of white people, and that’s not the face that I want for the Republican Party in the future.”
Nationally, the College Republicans are “the nation’s oldest, largest and most active youth political organization,” according to their website. The organization was founded in 1892 and there are currently 250,000 members in over 1,800 chapters nationally.
Not all club members share the same beliefs.
University of Oregon College Republicans meet weekly in Lillis 112 in Eugene, Ore. on Thursday April 27, 2017. (Samuel Marshall/Emerald)
While Capurro agrees with many of the Republican Party’s platform, he also agrees with Democrats on some issues, such as marriage equality and capital punishment. Many of the group members hold diverse viewpoints and struggle with the idea that there’s one set list of stereotyped Republican values.
One thing that unites the group is an agreement that they want a lower tuition and a more promising job market after graduation.
“One of the main reasons I voted for Donald Trump was job creation,” Capurro said, “because we’re college students, whoever we chose to be president was going to be in office when we graduate, and who was going to create the best job market when we graduate.”
For many Republicans, Trump has been a powerful figure for self-expression and has emboldened them to speak their mind on campus.
“I think he has done a great deal of encouraging us to not hide our beliefs,” Capurro said. “A lot of people are coming to our organization because they no longer feel afraid to show their beliefs.”
Even though this openness has led to more confrontations and stereotypes, Khang Ngo, a member of the College Republicans and an international student from Vietnam, explained that the strife has caused him to better understand his Republican beliefs because he frequently has to support them with facts.
“I actually have to do the research and say ‘Here’s why I think it’s true.’ And it’s helping me to be more critical about things,” Ngo said.
But not all in the group were on board with Trump’s campaign or even with his current actions. Several members volunteered with other campaigns during the election, and at meetings members often question the actions of the president; however, members still said they had more opportunity with the election of Trump than if a Democrat had been elected.
“Not all of us were for Trump, but at the end of the day, we all probably voted for him, or at least most of us,” Myhre said.
Regardless of their support, Trump’s brand affects how the group is seen on campus. Capurro tables for the group outside of the EMU on Wednesdays and Thursdays, fully clad in his Trump regalia. He also keeps a list of the types of harassment he receives.
“Sometimes they’ll give me a middle finger, sometimes they’ll take a picture and then give me a middle finger, sometimes they’ll call me things like fascist, a-hole, they’ll say f-you,” he said, pulling up a Word document with tallies for each category.
Khang Ngo is a student at the University of Oregon. (Samuel Marshall/Emerald)
“People have said to us out of nowhere, without even asking our opinions … to drop dead,” Capurro said.
Capurro is Middle-Eastern but is regularly labeled as a white supremacist. Ngo sees similar treatment, even though he’s an immigrant from Vietnam.
“They’re assuming that because I’m a minority, I have to think in a certain way, which is not true,” Ngo said. “It’s probably the most racist thing to assume that just because you’re a minority you have to vote for a Democrat.”
According to the College Republican website, participating in activism is a doorway for students to become more involved with the Republican Party. Members choose a topic each term and participate in volunteer service. Last term their focus was with Food for Lane County, and this term the group is assisting veterans’ programs around Eugene.
With their growing numbers, the College Republicans are trying to find more representation and combat stereotypes. There is talk of putting forth a conservative-oriented ASUO slate next year to better represent their organization in a student government that Ngo has described as “leftist.”
Ngo said that after graduation he will stay in Oregon, unlike many Republicans, who leave for more conservative areas.
“I actually want to stay in Oregon and see this state turn red again,” Ngo said. “People call me a fool for saying that, but Generation Z is projected to be the most conservative generation since World War II, so I have hope for the future.”
This piece has been updated to reflect the number of College Republican chapters and members.
It is Saturday, May 6. Here are this week’s biggest news stories.
In this week’s Daily Emerald weekly news wrap-up, Alec Cowan, Sararosa Davies and Craig Wright discuss this week’s biggest news stories: Tuesday was the 69th anniversary of Israel’s independence, and Israeli and Palestinian students are talking about their differences at what is dubbed the Manzil Midrash; and the Substance Abuse Prevention Program (SAPP) is being cut, along with five faculty from the School of Journalism and Communication and beloved professor Kevin Alltucker.
It is Saturday, April 29. Here are this week’s biggest news stories.
In this installment of the Daily Emerald weekly news wrap-up, Alec Cowan, Will Campbell and Emerson Malone discuss the Take Back the Night march had its 39th year on campus Thursday night; a former student has been convicted of coercion; students are now required to pick their major by sophomore year and what you need to know for this year’s commencement ceremony.
News Reporter Max Thornberry, Opinion Editor Alec Cowan and Podcast Editor Emerson Malone discuss all this and more in this episode from the Emerald Podcast Network.
This episode was produced by Emerson Malone. Music by Evan DuPell.
News reporter Max Thornberry joins Opinion Editor Alec Cowan and Podcast Editor Emerson Malone to go over this week’s most pressing stories: how the university’s proposed faculty cuts will hurt the Department of Romance Languages; the new sexual assault reporting policy gets passed by the Faculty Senate and UO For You develops its campaign platform a day after voting begins.
When the University of Oregon selected Ta-Nehisi Coates’ Between the World and Me for this year’s common reading book, there was a boiling optimism. A now-staple of contemporary literature, the book is being used in classrooms around the country to energize a discussion on a subject that Oregon has always struggled with: race.
Published in July 2015, Between the World and Me was immediately on a powerful trajectory. At breakneck speed, it won the National Book Award in November 2015 and topped the New York Times bestseller list in January 2016. It’s sold well over a million copies and has rocketed Ta-Nehisi Coates to the pinnacle seat in today’s topical discussion on race, and since, the Atlantic journalist has been described as “the single best writer on the subject of race in the United States.”
Between the World and Me is a story about what the Common Reading program has referred to as “the conversation”: the generational wisdom of what it means to be black in America — what to expect, how to face the deep-seated racism — imparted by elders of color to their children. Coates has described the novel’s birth as drawn from his own experience and anger after his friend, Prince Jones, was unjustly murdered by police, and that it was meant to ask questions and draw rage but never to be taken as a staple of racial discussion.
Wherever he goes, however, his reputation haunts. Coates, in numerous pieces and interviews, has denied the title of “consultant,” or “race expert,” only desiring the role of a discontent writer thinking out loud. Unfortunately, as often arises with popular writers of color, Coates and Between the World and Me have fallen victim to a mass tokenization.
This unwelcome effect is often described by Coates himself. Saturday Night Live featured a white girl holding Coates’ novel in her hands for their sketch, “The Bubble”; the writer has received emails from braggadocios readers claiming that the book “helped them win arguments.” After only a few years of fame, Coates is now looked to by many white readers as the definitive spokesman on race, whose role requires consultation on what he thinks is acceptable behavior, language and action in regards to race.
He has become another cog in the machine of racial confessors designed to absolve white people of their guilt.
It is important to consider, then, what role Oregon plays in this story. African-American students make up 2 percent of the student populace, while white students make up a towering 60 percent. The narrative abroad has boiled to this point: when does a story become appropriated? When, in the course of a book’s life, does it become shut off from an audience because it becomes, as Coates has put it, “about what white people think about it”?
“I think it’s a challenging topic to discuss,” said Sharon Kaplan, the Program Coordinator for the Common Reading program. “I think it’s not an easy thing and it’s hard for a lot of us, for one, thing, to know what other people experience and look from other points of view.”
Kaplan acknowledged the difficulty the book presents and that coming to terms with history can be daunting. It’s difficult to choose a book that is accessible to such a broad audience. The Common Reading program selects a book each year for students to read and provides copies of the book to all incoming freshman, and they also offer multiple events for students to attend throughout the year. The program has recommended numerous articles on their website for understanding the lineage that this book follows: “Why aren’t there black people in Oregon?”; the “Mims Houses Memorial Monument Dedication speech”; “Untold Stories: Black History at the University of Oregon.” The documented struggle of the state with diversity is laced with breadcrumbs through history.
“I think it raises intriguing questions in a climate where, you know, 95 percent of this curriculum at our institution just refuses engagements in race,” said Dr. Daniel HoSang, an ethnic studies and political science associate professor, who is also the head of the ethnic studies department.
HoSang said that he uses the book in his own classes to energize conversations, and that he’s glad it’s in front of more students. He has his reservations, but sees the book as an opportunity for understanding across all identities.
“Some of the forms of dispossession of violence that he’s talking about, they’re not specific to Baltimore, or black communities or communities of color,” said HoSang. “They’re becoming, in some ways, much more familiar to working white communities — rural, dispossessed white communities.”
HoSang said he uses Between the World and Me to open connections between students and worlds they might not otherwise understand. In this regard the book’s outcome is dependent on how students experience it, which makes it difficult to predict if Oregon will contribute to this tokenization. But regardless of these individual experiences, there’s one underlying message: do something.
“The implication there is that all of us have a duty to think critically and to think seriously, and with the black face that was on our campus, with the continued marginalization and struggles of black students and faculty, everyone has to take this on as a question,” said HoSang.
The crucial question the university must ask is whether Between the World and Me is an earnest campaign for understanding or another device to feel progressive enough to be different. Too often the liberal pockets of the United States make gestures such as this to reassure themselves of their identity and absolve themselves of responsibility to communities of color, and, considering the alarming presence of racism, the mass gentrification and the tenuous history of race in Oregon, one would be hard-pressed to not look at this event as just that. That isn’t definitive of how our future will look— it’s only recognizing that all possibilities are open.
“He asks you to keep asking questions, and to keep digging into things,” said Kaplan. “And that’s something we have to deal with, and it’s hard. It’s a very hard book, but we don’t want to stop — we don’t want to not do it because it’s hard, and so, we’re doing it.”
Indeed, we are.
Hear the full story on this episode from the Emerald Podcast Network, produced by Franziska Monahan.
With the election passed, the future of Donald Trump’s America is now in view. What voters can presently look to is “Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter,” a 100 day plan released by the Trump campaign in late October. The plan contains three major reforms: cleaning up Washington, protecting American workers and restoring the “rule of law.” The information below is a compilation of statements made by Donald Trump and his campaign in both speeches and official releases regarding major administrative plans:
Draining the Swamp: This is Trump’s term for his major government reforms. Biggest among them is a proposed Constitutional Amendment that would impose term limits on all members of congress, which holds an unpopular opinion by many of those in government now. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that, “it will not be on the agenda in the Senate,” Other drainages include shrinking the federal workforce, a five year-ban on government officials becoming lobbyists after government service (and a lifetime ban on White house officials lobbying for a foreign government) and a Campaign finance reform banning foreign lobbyists from funding American election campaigns.
Cancel President Obama’s executive orders: The president has the full authority to repeal any executive orders of their predecessor. Chief among these orders is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act (DACA), which Trump has promised to “immediately” cancel. DACA and its expanded version, DAPA (for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents), are programs offering deferred deportation and two-year work permits to young adults between the ages of 15 and 30 who were illegally brought to the U.S. as children. More than 740,000 people have been approved with up to 1.7 million potentially eligible. Other orders include Obama’s executive order requiring background checks on firearms sold at gun shows. Trump has also pledged to ban gun-free zones in schools and military bases.
Request a full repeal of Obamacare: Trump initially promised to fully repeal Obamacare — possibly on the first day of his presidency — but has since stated that he hopes to keep two main pillars of the program (statutes prohibiting the denial of insurance based on preexisting conditions and the allowance of children to be on their parents’ plans). Based on Trump’s contract, the piece of legislation is entitled the “Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act,” and after day one the administration will replace it with a plan that creates, “Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines and allows states manage Medicaid funds.” Independent analysts have shown that the repeal would increase the federal deficit by up to $41 billion and increase the number of uninsured individuals in the U.S. by up to 25 million.
“Suspend immigration from terror-prone regions”: This includes regions were vetting cannot safely occur. The statement references that all vetting, “will be considered extreme vetting,” and from his campaign statements, it is assumed that those primarily targeted will be those of Islamic faith. However, some are skeptical of how a screening process would work as current U.S. immigration law, “does not take religion into account in the approval of visas, and current applications do not include questions about religious identity or affiliation.” The statement did not include which countries are considered “terror-prone regions” but if the countries in which ISIS has recruited from are considered then there are more than 80.
Trade: The president does have the authority to back out of trade deals, and Donald Trump has announced his intention to renegotiate NAFTA or even withdraw from the agreement. His statement, however, claims a full withdrawal from the TPP, as countries involved in the partnership have agreed not to renegotiate. According to Alan Wolff, a former U.S. deputy trade representative, for the United States to withdraw from NAFTA other countries in the agreement, “would have a list of things they’d want.”
“End the Offshoring Act”: This is Trump’s tariff plan to bring industry back to the United States. Throughout his campaign the stated tariff rates have varied from 20 to 45 percent, depending on the country and product. Numerous experts have noted that there is no exact answer to how Trump’s tariffs would affect the economy, but most agree that the economy would take a big hit and high tariffs are likely to cause trade wars, possibly costing hundreds of thousands of jobs in worst case scenarios.
“End Illegal Immigration Act”: This act would fund the construction of a wall along the southern border with, “the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall.” It would also establish a minimum federal prison sentence for those reentering the U.S. after deportation or with criminal convictions, and would also change visa rules to include harsher penalties for overstaying. This act works in conjunction with Trump’s plan to deport more than 2 million illegal immigrants and, “cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back.” “Recalcitrant” countries are those labeled by ICE because they, “will not accept criminal aliens sent home from the U.S,” and under Trump’s plan the State Department could withhold visas for such country’s citizens until the country agrees to accept deportees. Regarding the wall, the president of Mexico stated that the country would not be willing to finance a border wall when he met with Trump this past summer. Trump did hint at a possible deportation task force during the campaign, however Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has since stated that the government is not, “planning on erecting a deportation force.”
Taxes: The Middle Class Tax Relief and Simplification Act would do several things. First, it would collapse the seven federal tax brackets into three and lower taxes for all workers across the board. The very wealthy, however, would still enjoy the greatest tax cuts, giving them a factor or two more than the Bush tax cuts did. Among those taking the biggest tax hits are single parent households. However, less taxes means less revenue for the government, and it is expected to raise the federal deficit by about $5 trillion dollars.
