Esquire magazine published an article titled “The Life of an American Boy at 17 Feb. 12,” which features a 17-year-old, white teenage boy from a mostly white and conservative town in Wisconsin. This is the first article of a series following what it’s like to grow up in America today.

I understand Esquire probably sought out to cover all the bases of representation, but nobody wants to read a story about the life of yet another white, middle-class boy.

As controversial as it may be, Esquire felt the need to represent someone who already has so much representation in the U.S. by default. However, the story is just boring and has no meaningful resonance.

Throughout the story, Ryan Morgan, the subject of the profile, discusses his thoughts on school, girls, video games, hunting and his parents’ divorce. He mentions that around the 2016 presidential election, he “couldn’t say anything [supportive about Trump] without pissing anyone off” at his school that was mostly anti-Trump.

Twitter users were quick to let their thoughts be known. One user pointed out that it was insensitive of Esquire to publish this story first in the series, especially during the Black History Month. Many shared that they simply don’t care to read the article, while some others agreed that Esquire should be examining male whiteness.

As a journalist, I understand what Esquire was seeking to accomplish. If they are going to do an entire series on the experience of growing up today in America, they will need a wide scope of people to interview.

However, I can’t believe they actually wrote a long-winded article detailing the mundane events and thoughts of Morgan’s life. Hopefully, there are more fulfilling and inspiring stories to be published in this series.

I’m not mad at Esquire, but they shouldn’t expect this article to have meaning to anybody. People simply can’t empathize with people who they know have inherent privilege.

A landmark ruling on First Amendment protections for students in public schools was made in the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines Supreme Court case that decided both teachers and students retain their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression when they enter the school. This was at a time when the civil rights movement and anti-Vietnam War protests were causing much debate in American society. It reaffirmed the importance of the First Amendment in protecting speech, especially dissent.

The case was regarding three teenage students who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War at their high school in Des Moines, Iowa. The school banned the action, but the students continued to wear the armbands in violation of the new policy and were suspended. They took legal action with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, and the case went all the way up to the Supreme Court where there was a 7-2 ruling, deeming the actions of the school unconstitutional. The court held that the school needed tangible reason for their action, emphasizing that the want to avoid any discomfort with opposing viewpoints was not an accepted justification. This is a very high bar to meet, and it rightfully puts the burden of proof on the censor.

To celebrate the 50th anniversary of this ruling, the Student Press Law Center, the Freedom Forum Institute and the Newseum has named 2019 as the Year of the Student Journalist. These organizations focus on various issues related to the First Amendment. The three main goals of this declaration are to raise awareness on the role played by student journalists, to focus on the challenges faced by them and to display the value of journalism for an engaged civic life. These goals are closely interrelated. Student journalists who investigate problems in their schools often face various forms of censorship, yet their stories are essential to other students, teachers and stakeholders who want to be informed about the school’s affairs.

Today, newspapers and journalists are facing opposition from many fronts, including changes in technology, financial troubles and increased threats of censorship. The Triangle announced last week that it may be publishing its last print issue as a result of financial difficulties. However, fulfilling the promise of the editorial board to keep fighting, another edition of Drexel University’s independent newspaper has been printed this week. The revival is a result of the combined efforts of the Triangle staff and the wider Drexel community who, through their support and donations, have made it clear that they know the importance of student journalism. Despite all the troubles and uncertainties, this has been a commendable recovery, and there is much to look forward to from this newspaper in the rest of the Year of the Student Journalist.

More information on the Year of the Student Journalist can be found here: https://splc.org/year-of-the-student-journalist/

Three days after becoming the youngest woman sworn into Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sat down with Anderson Cooper for a landmark interview on 60 Minutes. After talking about her progressive political history, Cooper asked about paying for “radical” initiatives like free public education and the proposed “Green New Deal.” Ocasio-Cortez then floated the idea of a 60 to 70 percent tax rate for the “tippy-tops” of the income scale.

Though a 70 percent tax rate sounds menacing, in the grand scheme of the American economy, it’s fairly modest.

Most of the rage towards the proposed rate is rooted in a misunderstanding of how tax brackets work. When the phrase “70 percent tax rate” is thrown around, most assume that this rate is applied to the entirety of the income for the top tax brackets , making the taxation seem like a greedy front against those in the top bracket.

Within days of the interview airing, multiple Republican congressmen criticized Ocasio-Cortez’s plan in an uproar.

“Take away 70 percent of your income and give it to leftist fantasy programs,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise said describing Ocasio-Cortez’s plan.

In reality, only a small piece of income is taxed at a 70 percent rate. Brackets are in place to regulate the tax on portions of income. If you move past a bracket, and your income moves up into the higher rate, only the chunk moving into that bracket receives that higher tax, not the total income. For example: If you made $19,000 in 2013, that would have been split into two tax brackets at 10 and 15 percent. The first $17,850 would fall under the first bracket and would have been taxed at 10 percent. After the designated 17,850 income mark, the $1,150 over the first bracket would have been taxed at 15 percent.

This confusion of marginal tax rates represents a gross ignorance of our own tax history. According to data from the Tax Foundation, in the 1950s the United States had 26 different tax brackets, with rates up to 91 percent for the top bracket.

Previous decades brackets were based on a simple structure: if you make more money, you have more disposable income, therefore, you should contribute more towards your taxes. Towards the end of the Reagan Presidency, the number of tax brackets dropped dramatically, from 15 brackets in 1986 to five in 1987. This push for a “simpler” tax system also decreased the top tax rate from 50 percent to 38.5 percent and raised the lowest bracket rate from 0 percent to 11 percent.

Since the late 1970s, American income inequality has been  on the rise, and these intense tax changes during the Reagan era only widened the gap between the 1 percent and 99 percent. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, after tax income for the top 1 percent of households increased 242 percent from 1979 to 2015. In comparison, the middle 60 percent income population remained unchanged after bracket reduction, and has only gone up 46 percent in the same 36-year span.

After the dramatic drop in 1986, the brackets have remained relatively the same. Bracket numbers have ranged from two to seven and rates for the top span between 28 and 39.6 percent.

With this history of changing brackets and rates in mind, as well as the increase in the hyper-wealthy 1 percent, Ocasio-Cortez bringing this 70 percent idea to the forefront and reverting back to progressive standards could revive the suffocating middle class. Taxation should be about paying forward your equal share to contribute to common goods like funding public schools, keeping national parks clean and maintaining essential public services, which include water and sewer systems. To fight against taxation would be to neglect all the necessities given to society through the tax system.

The United States is a country made up of a small percentage living in extreme excess, essentially having control of the direction of the economy, and a large number of people who struggle to get everyday necessities. Some of those living in excess are in our own government. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos owns multiple boats, one of them valued at $40 million, and has assets valued at at least $580 million, according to Bloomberg. She’s a figure who is supposed to represent the country, but instead, is living proof of a broken system that only functions for the few.

A higher rate might seem extreme and “radical” to some, but for others, it’s common sense. A poll conducted by POLITICO from Feb. 1-2 showed that 61 percent favored Elizabeth Warren’s “Wealth Tax” proposal, while 45 percent favored the tax rates laid out by Ocasio-Cortez. Even if these exact plans don’t come to fruition, having members of Congress like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez addressing a future without gross inequality brings hope.

The ultimate goal of a 70 percent tax rate is to end the overly lavish lifestyle for a small chunk of the population and bring the country to a more even playing field economically. It’s about reducing inequality. Jeff Bezos shouldn’t be buying a house with ten bedrooms while there are people working multiple jobs who can’t even put food on the table.

At the beginning of winter quarter, the shuttle stops on 33rd Street for the Dragon and Powelton/Spring Garden routes were switched. An email was sent to Drexel University students and faculty Jan. 4 notifying them about the change. However, as a daily rider of the Powelton/Spring Garden shuttle, I think this is an unusual decision.

This is a temporary change, according to the Dragon shuttle schedule, but nothing has been said as to when the stops will return to their normal locations. The Dragon route has stayed the same, aside from the change in starting location. The Powelton/Spring Garden route was slightly changed by adding a few stops, but I don’t think that is what would have warranted this switch. Now, instead of turning onto Baring Street from 33rd and then turning right onto 35th Street, the bus continues straight, turning left onto Haverford Avenue, left onto 36th Street and then right onto Powelton Avenue.

However, the bus can hardly make the tight turn onto Powelton Avenue. Cars on the other side of the street always have to move over to allow the bus through. A couple of times, the bus driver has gone off the route because of the difficult turn. This is a change to the route that I don’t see necessary, especially since I never noticed a problem like this with the previous route.

Now, the hundreds of students who take the Dragon shuttle every day have to wait outside of the Papadakis Integrated Science Building on 33rd Street between Market and Chestnut streets. The crowd of students waiting typically clogs up the sidewalk; this happens most at times around noon and 5 p.m. when most people seem to be using the shuttle. Not nearly as many students regularly take the Powelton/Spring Garden shuttle, and the sidewalk never got congested at its original stop.

The stop on 33rd and Market streets is more appropriate for the Dragon shuttle crowd as it has a designated area where some students can sit or stand away from the flow of foot traffic. The only issue is when a line of students is loading the bus since the entire sidewalk gets blocked, which creates a major obstruction and a huge annoyance.

Although a small issue in the grand scheme of things, Drexel should consider switching the Dragon and Powelton/Spring Garden stops back as soon as possible to better accommodate the respective riders of each shuttle.

Back in October, I wrote an article about why I thought being on co-op was better than being in class. After being on co-op for five months now, I still hold the same opinion, but to my surprise, I’m actually very eager to go back to class for senior year.

There’s no doubt that getting up in the morning, going to a job that I enjoy for the day, and then having the evening to relax is an enjoyable lifestyle. And even though I’ve been doing it for a few months, my enjoyment hasn’t waned. However, there are a number of things that I miss about being in class.

The first, and something that I didn’t really miss until I was away from it for a while, is being in the classroom itself. I know it seems weird, but there is something about a classroom that you can’t find anywhere else. Some are no doubt nicer than others, but they all have the same feel to them, and what’s funny is that I don’t know exactly what that feeling is.

Something else that I miss quite a bit is being among my peers. I still live on campus, so I see and interact with my fellow college students every day, however, it’s not the same as going to a class and seeing the same group of people for 10 weeks straight. Even if you don’t talk to the people in your class, you start to grow this sense of familiarity with them when you see them sitting in the same seat over and over again. It’s weird, but it’s the good kind of weird, and it’s different from walking into your place of work and seeing your co-workers sitting at the same desks every day.

Now, I can’t believe I’m about to say this, but I also miss homework. Before you call me insane, let me be clear: I only miss the homework that actually benefited me. Being an English major, I have to do an abnormal amount of reading, but a lot of it is quality reading. Sure, there are some that I’ve found to be a snore fest, such as reading a scholarly article or research paper that I just didn’t find interesting or engaging. But I’ve spent a lot of my time as a student reading some stories that have become personal favorites of mine: “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight,” “Dante’s Inferno,” “Dune” and “Gulliver’s Travels,” to name a few. And those are just a handful of the books, there are a ton of short stories and poems I’ve had to read that were also a joy to experience. That’s the kind of homework I miss, not trying to memorize the key points from the chapter of a textbook for a midterm; that type of homework, I never want to see again.

I also miss my professors a lot. I can safely say that I haven’t had one bad professor during my time at Drexel, and I don’t think that many other students can say that, so in that sense, I’m very lucky. Not only did I learn a lot from their classes, but many of them indirectly taught me life lessons that I’ll be able to use in the future. It was always nice to be able to stop by their offices and have a conversation about something that I didn’t understand.

Lastly, I miss the unpredictability of it all. Not knowing if a professor would cancel class on a day for some specific reason was always fun. Or trying to guess how much time an assignment would take me and how difficult or easy it would be. I know some people hate the idea of not knowing, but for me, the uncertainty of classes kept things fresh and interesting. It was as if anything could happen on any given day, but there was always a path forward, it just took some looking to find it.

I only have a few more weeks of co-op before I have to go back to classes for senior year, and I have to admit, I’m super pumped for it. Part of me is also ready to be finished with undergraduate life, but I know that I’ll miss it after it’s all said and done, so I’m planning on enjoying it while it lasts.

There’s an old saying that politics is like a game of chess, with two sides of the same game battling it out to see who can take control of the board. And, as simplistic as the metaphor is, it holds up, especially within the government shutdown that began Dec. 22, 2018.

On one side: the Republican Party, led by President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Their ultimate goal is to secure the funding to install Trump’s long-promised border wall between the United States and Mexico. Without this provision, according to the Republican Party, the government will continue to be shut down.

On the other: the Democratic Party, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Their ultimate goal is to deny Donald Trump the wall and come to a compromise to restart the government, but not one that, in their minds, would hurt the American people.

Each side is trying to appeal to their supporters, a not only clear objective but also a necessary one. The ultimate goal of the Republicans is to ensure Trump’s election to a second term as President, in spite of the numerous controversies regarding humanitarian efforts and supposed allegiances to the Russian, North Korean and Saudi Arabian governments. The Democrats, on the other hand, want to appear strong after regaining the House during the mid-term elections last November.

With these goals in mind, both parties have played their chess strategies to perfection. The Democrats, of course, have turned down offer upon offer whenever the discussion shifts to the request for the border wall, which has, for the most part, been a point of satisfaction amongst the Democrats — continually bringing up Trump’s poor conduct as President and the supposed spinelessness of the Republican Party for following him. Convincing Trump to delay the State of the Union address until the shutdown has concluded was certainly a substantial piece of strategy on their part.

The Republicans, however, have carefully chosen what they would offer and their actions, such as increasing rights for DREAMers and those under Temporary Protected Status. Trump has even tried knocking the Democrats down and even threatened to declare a national emergency if the Democrats didn’t give Trump the wall. Trump canceling Pelosi’s trips to Belgium, Egypt and Afghanistan was also, on his part, an active display of power.

So thus, both sides have reached a virtual stalemate. However, for this conflict to end, one of the two parties will have to do something they don’t want to do: zugzwang. What is zugzwang? Well, going back to the chess metaphor, a zugzwang is a situation in which one of the players is put into a disadvantage because they must make a move when they would prefer to pass, thus hurting their position.

In other words, either the Republicans put the Democrats in a position where they will have no choice but to give funding for the wall, or the Democrats put the Republicans in a situation where they have no choice but to give in on the border wall altogether. Either way, one of the parties would be giving up vast ground, and the results of the government shutdown could dictate the results of the 2020 election. However, the short term effects will be the same: this is a chess game that no one will win — not the Republicans, not the Democrats, not the people. No one wins from this.

In conclusion, the shutdown has to end, and compromises need to be made. However, the government needs to remember one final thing: the people come first, no matter who declares checkmate.

As a college student, I can attest to the fact that textbooks cost a lot. But, is their high cost out of the ordinary? College textbooks have always been pricey, and with good reason. Writing and revising the books can require a large investment of time and expertise. Textbooks — especially those of upper-level courses — with a limited market are bound to cost more since royalties are relatively modest. Textbooks are valuable and it makes sense for them to have a hefty price. Unfortunately, what students are faced with is anything but ordinary.

The real problem is how fast the cost of textbooks are rising in price. The College Board found that the average American student spends around $1,200 every year on textbooks and class supplies. A study done by the U.S. Government Accountability Office revealed that between 2002 and 2012, the price of college textbooks in the United States rose by 82 percent. An even more staggering statistic, reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is that textbook prices rose by 1,041 percent between 1997 and 2015.

Unfortunately, students don’t have much power in fixing the broken textbook market. According to the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, students are captive consumers; this means the prices of textbooks can keep being raised because students have no choice but to purchase whatever books they are assigned. Essentially, students do not have much room in arguing for change.

In my experience, the textbooks do help me prepare for tests. Depending on the professor, having a textbook can really help with understanding the material. Unfortunately, many students are having to forgo the added benefits of a textbook in order to save money. A 2017 Wakefield Study reports that 85 percent of students delay the course material. Of that 85 percent, over 90 percent cite the high cost as the reason for delaying. Also, 50 percent of students say that their grades were negatively impacted by their decision to delay purchasing the textbook. Amid these bleak statistics, we can come to the conclusion that textbooks are now hurting students more than they are helping. Students should not have to break the bank in order to strive for success, especially since most students are already drowning in debt.

It doesn’t always have to be this way though. While students don’t have much power when it comes to fixing the textbook market directly, there are other ways to lessen the problem. There has been a push for legislation that would reduce the cost of textbooks; while congress did not advance with the bill when it was introduced, it is still a better alternative than doing absolutely nothing. Various states, such as Virginia, are passing legislation that mandates that public institutions create a framework to adopt and use educational resources across the state. The main motivation behind these bills is to encourage other academic leaders to adopt such methods and material in the future.

Notably, Virginia’s community colleges have been working with open educational resources for a longer time than other institutions. Students at Central Virginia Community College can take over twenty classes without purchasing textbooks, and it is estimated that it has saved them $250,000 since 2016. While open educational resources might not be a viable option for every state, it is important that legislators understand that something has to change.

You order something online and eagerly track its every move until it arrives at your doorstep. But when you go outside to get it, it’s not there.

Make no mistake — your package was most likely stolen, which is pretty common in Philadelphia. Nothing is more frustrating than finding out somebody swiped an item you paid for, right from your doorstep.

This can even happen in dorms as well. Several different people handle packages in dorms, and they don’t always fall into the right hands. When I lived in Race Street Residences, my aunt sent me a Christmas card containing a $100 gift card. When I picked it up, the top of the envelope was ripped and the gift card was stolen.

If this ever happens to you, you’ll probably want to get your package back or at least serve some justice. However, there’s not much you could do other than report it to the police, besides taking your own measures to prevent future theft.

The Philadelphia Police Department must deal with high volumes of package thefts, especially around holidays. You can always file a police report — and I recommend that you do — but the chances of them finding the suspect and your package are slim. That is unless they are a known repeat offender.

There’s no telling exactly how many packages were stolen in Philadelphia in 2018. Homeowners everywhere are showing concern about being affected by package thieves; they want to know how to stop them. In a 2017 survey by Shorr Packaging Corp., 41 percent of respondents said they avoid buying certain items, especially electronics, online because they are afraid of package thieves.

Stopping yourself from buying certain items that may be more appealing to thieves will not decrease package thefts. You may notice it is working for you, but it will not solve the problem overall.

First of all, if your packages are usually dropped on your porch or doorstep, try to have them delivered to a secure location. Amazon Lockers are the safest option for items delivered from the website. Your items will be delivered to a protected locker, which can only be claimed by scanning a barcode or entering a passcode sent to your email.

You could also have your packages delivered to work. You could request the carrier to require a signature for all deliveries. If you’re not home to sign for your package, the carrier will take it to the nearest package facility for you to pick up at a later time.

Additionally, if a package theft occurs in your dorm mailroom, speak up. I tried to when that happened to me, but the person working in the mailroom denied knowing anything about the situation. I wasn’t sure what to do, but I should have tried to see who I could hold accountable.

No matter the value of the package, having something stolen from you is degrading and unfair. Do everything in your power to report and prevent package thefts in your neighborhood or community.

By now, you’ve probably at least heard of the recent Gillette advertisement titled “We Believe”.

This video, posted on Youtube Jan. 13, is a roughly two-minute short film that calls upon men to set good examples for children and show positive traits through our actions and the principles we embody.

“From today on, we pledge to actively challenge the stereotypes and expectations of what it means to be a man everywhere you see Gillette,” the company said on their website regarding “The Best Men Can Be” campaign.

So what does this mean?

Well, for starters it means that a lot of people aren’t happy. The video, which has accumulated over 25 million views, has twice as many dislikes as it does likes, and the vast majority of the comments are angry outbursts.

“Last week’s Gillette commercial … became the latest piece of corporate messaging to berate and belittle men,” Karol Markowicz wrote in a Fox News article published  Jan. 21 The piece then went on to elaborate how the commercial framed men as universal aggressors and rapists, and that instead we need to stop insulting men.

Well, I agree with one of those statements. But probably not for the reason they want me to.

From my perspective, the implication that someone isn’t the absolute best version of themselves doesn’t constitute an attack, or even an insult — you’d have to be pretty self-confident to say that your personality is absolutely flawless — but Fox’s comment stands. Yes, we shouldn’t insult men, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t struggle to change what it means to be a man, or at least what we might think it means.

Furthermore, this video didn’t paint men as universal aggressors or rapists. While it implied that some of us are, it also called upon the rest of men to hold those men accountable, and to help defend the people affected by them. Gillette wants us to be the heroes in our stories, and they’re trying to define what makes one.

Obviously, as a multinational company, Gillette doesn’t get to define society, and this entire campaign was probably just a publicity scheme, but I followed the link at the end of the video, and I’m satisfied with their explanation:

“It’s time we acknowledge that brands, like ours, play a role in influencing culture. And as a company that encourages men to be their best, we have a responsibility to make sure we are promoting positive, attainable, inclusive and healthy versions of what it means to be a man. … We’re inviting all men along this journey with us — to strive to be better, to make us better, and to help each other be better.”

Now, I know that as a featherweight tea addict I don’t exactly fall into the macho archetype, but I find it hard to understand why people are angry about this campaign. It’s never wrong to want to be better — everyone does that — but men of all degrees were called upon by this video to be better, and its reception only goes to show how far we all have to go.

Most articles written regarding the Women’s March always begin in the most inspired, proud, accomplished tones. This definitely isn’t going to be one of them. I’m neither proud nor inspired by this year’s march — I’m disappointed.

I guess you could say I walked in with high expectations. I figured the third time’s the charm — and the Women’s Wave would arrive in tsunami form. Yet the numbers drastically dwindled from last year. The spark ignited two years ago upon Donald Trump’s inauguration faded out, and this march was merely left in embers.

I am very much aware of the lack of funding, unpredictable weather and most importantly the rumors of antisemitism that caused much hesitation in regards to attendance. These rumors were very much he-said-she-said, but the root of the claims were in regards to some of the leaders’ ties to Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam. Recently, Tamika Mallory, one of the founders, posted a picture with Farrakhan, captioned “GOAT.” This one post sparked great outrage among the Jewish community, as Farrakhan has made antisemitic comments in the past.

Before I begin defending Mallory, I definitely should make it clear that antisemitism (and bigotry in any form) should absolutely not be tolerated. With that being said, I do think it is unfair to put Mallory under fire for Farrakhan’s quotes. The Women’s March co-founder, among her colleagues, made it very clear she does not see eye-to-eye with everything the minister stands for.

“I called him the greatest of all time because of what he has done in black communities,” Mallory said. “Just because you go into a space with someone does not mean you agree with everything that they say.”

More so, attacking Mallory for her ties to the Nation of Islam is extremely unfair, considering how much the organization has done for the progression of African-Americans. Mallory isn’t the only black leader who has hesitated to condemn Farrakhan, as that would mean condemning years of African-American advocacy.

Mallory shouldn’t be held responsible for the words of another man. Gandhi was misogynistic. John Lennon was an abusive husband. John Wayne was a white supremacist. We continue to support men accused of sexual assault. We watch their shows, read their books, listen to their music and buy tickets to their concert. Jeff Bezos cheated on his wife, but that certainly won’t stop us from adding item upon item to our Amazon shopping cart.

So why should the words of Farrakhan cause an attack on not only Tamika Mallory, but the whole Women’s March? The march is one of the most intersectional movements our country has ever been hit with. Cities across the country were flooded with people of all different shapes, sizes, sexualities, colors, creeds, nationalities, parties and backgrounds for the past two years. It was a shame to see the march look so different, and quite smaller this year. It feels like we took a giant step backwards.

This year many independent marches broke out in light of this news. But aren’t we all marching for the same thing? Equity, fairness, understanding, justice for all. Let’s unite under those beliefs and stop acting like the petty women we are stereotyped to be (I have a seperate lecture coming for ya, men). Don’t give up on the Women’s March just yet, it’s time to get to work again.