While many college students around the country were not directly provided with financial aid from the federal stimulus package known as the CARES Act, numerous universities around the country have been given money for students. Saint Louis University was included in the list of more than 5,000 universities around the country who have received federal aid, ultimately amounting to $5.14 million.

According to SLU’s Vice President and Chief Financial Officer David Heimburger in a university press release, half of the $5.14 million—$2.57 million—will go directly to students who need it the most “based on unexpected changes and expenses.” The other half of the federal aid will go towards the university’s approximate $10 million cost recovery from refunds issued for room and board. Heimburger said that these amounts do not include the $1.67 million that SLU’s medical practice received from the stimulus package.

The CARES Act instructed universities like SLU to direct the student aid towards current undergraduate and graduate students who have incurred COVID-19 related expenses, according to Heimburger. “Financial questions and concerns voiced by SLU families have helped guide how to best distribute this aid, in adherence with the federal guidelines,” he said.

Heimburger added the federal act encouraged SLU to give special attention to students with unmet needs and Title IV eligible students. However, Heimburger pointed out that the CARES Act did not address COVID-19 related expenses incurred by international students, DACA students or students who were already enrolled in exclusively-online programs, such as SLU’s School of Professional Studies.

To help SLU identify students’ needs, Heimburger said that the university is asking all students who were financially harmed by COVID-19 to fill out the COVID-19 Relief Request Application so that SLU can learn if students are eligible for the CARES Act aid, the student emergency fund or “other forms of institutional aid.”

According to Heimburger, there are two phases of CARES Act grants for eligible students: immediate, need-based grants ($1.5 million total) and unexpected expenses grants ($1.07 million total).

The $300-$500 immediate, need-based grants will automatically be distributed to students whose Estimated Family Contribution (EFC) on the 2019-2020 FAFSA filing is below $12,000. Heimburger said that the grant amount will be awarded on a sliding scale based on the family’s EFC.

SLU expects around 3,500 students to be awarded grants, according to Heimburger. This money will be distributed by May 8 to the students’ MySLU account similar to housing and dining refunds. “Because these grants are automatic, there is no further action required by those students or their families,” said Heimburger. 

Unexpected expenses grants, on the other hand, include the unexpected costs students have incurred due to the switch from face-to-face interaction to remote learning. According to Heimburger, these costs include, but are not limited to, food, housing and moving expenses, technology, transportation, child care, medical expenses and increased utility costs.

Heimburger asserted that the aid award amounts will vary based on need and funding availability after SLU reviews the student’s COVID-19 Relief Request Application. The maximum amount awarded to students will be $500. The application will be available to students as long as funds are still available, according to Heimburger. The Vice President and CFO noted that SLU expects to process funding decisions within five days after receiving an application. “Please note that in some cases, additional documentation may be required, which could extend our response time,” said Heimburger.

According to Assistant Vice President of Strategy and Communication Clayton Berry, more than 1,600 students have already filled out COVID-19 Relief Request Applications. Berry said that Heimburger’s April 30 message was emailed to students, parents, families, faculty and staff in order to ensure all SLU students were being reached regarding financial relief opportunities. The message was also shared through the university’s official Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn accounts, posted on SLU’s COVID-19 website and published in the Newslink email for faculty, staff and students. In an informal survey conducted on nine SLU students, six said that they have seen or read Heimburger’s message. This survey helped to provide additional insight into the overall effectiveness of SLU’s outreach efforts on this issue.     

In the press release issued by the CFO’s office, Heimburger said that he hoped the information provided will be useful for SLU students and families in need. “The pain this pandemic has caused our community cannot be understated,” said Heimburger, “Know that we are here for you. We are OneSLU.”

On May 4, Missouri began phase one of the state’s Show Me Strong Recovery Plan. This means that non-essential businesses and services around the state may start reopening this month in the name of economic recovery. However, this reopening plan will not have an impact on St. Louis County and the City of St. Louis as of now. Both the city and the county remain under stay-at-home orders until further notice by local officials. So while other places across Missouri may reopen, nothing changes for St. Louis City and County. The order by Governor Mike Parson is currently in place until Sunday, May 31. This order will be reevaluated before it expires and may be further restricted, less restricted or extended in the current form.

I believe the reopening order by Parson is extremely misguided, reckless and cowardly. This order looks to me that Parson is caving in to members of his base who would rather have more people in this state needlessly die if it means they can start dining in at Applebees again. Reopening a state that has not reached its peak in terms of infection rates in the midst of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic is beyond idiotic. You can dress it up all you want as this being a “necessary” sacrifice for the state’s economic recovery but I know that’s not what this is really about. This is about selfish and hype-individualistic people like Parson who don’t want their perfect insular lives to face any sort of inconvenience even if it is done to prevent unnecessary death and suffering. Missouri’s working class can go kick rocks as far as Parson and his base are concerned.

While it is true that many small businesses in Missouri are suffering and may permanently shut down because of the pandemic, starting to reopen the economy this prematurely would not improve much in my eyes. Even with increased testing, expanding access to PPE and expanding health care capacity more people will inevitably head out into public more often. A higher infection rate means a higher hospitalization rate, which would put an increasingly overwhelming strain on the health care system all around the state. The more overwhelmed the health care system becomes makes the jobs of frontline nurses and doctors even more dangerous and difficult. An overwhelmed health care system would only lead to increase in preventable deaths from COVID-19 and other ailments. I seriously doubt people around the state would want to keep going out in public when the death rate starts to spike. In this case, Missouri’s economy and small businesses would be no better off than they were during lockdown. I seriously doubt the economic knowledge and instincts of anyone who thinks this half-baked reopening plan could lead to a different outcome.

What’s even more mind-boggling is that the businesses included in the reopening plan include places of worship, large venues/stadiums, restaurants and movie theaters. All of these venues are required to follow social distancing requirements between people while reopening, but how well can that really be enforced? Businesses and law enforcement may do their best to keep patrons six feet apart but that is still extremely difficult to enforce in medium to high capacity venues. An example of this is Eureka restaurant Camila’s Tex-Mex, whose employees allowed people into the restaurant due to poor weather conditions. This was done despite the fact the restaurant is located in St. Louis county and remains under lockdown orders which prohibit dining in. Photos showed at least fifteen people showing a complete lack of social distancing crowded around two tables within proximity of each other. To top it all off, in the background there was a piñata shaped like the coronavirus, featuring a racist Asian caricature on the front. It’s deeply unsettling that these selfish people are treating the COVID-19 pandemic like some joke, especially when those who will suffer the most from it are the highly exposed low-income employees of reopened businesses.

Reopening the economy at some point is definitely necessary for the state of Missouri, but I think Parson’s plan of starting to arbitrarily reopen this month in the midst of the first wave of COVID-19 is way too premature. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, for example, is in Phase 3 of the state’s reopening plan, meaning that the rate of infection of those tested, the number of patients admitted to the hospital and the number of patients needing ICU beds is stable or declining. Missouri, on the other hand, has not reached its peak or has widely available testing but has opted to reopen anyway. This decision could only lead to disaster in my eyes and will probably force Parson to restart statewide lockdown once COVID-19 infection rates start to spike. Maybe if Parson spent less time virtue signaling about refusing to wear a mask in the presence of frontline workers and actually did his job to help and protect his constituents, Missouri would not be in such a mess now and into the future. Instead of listening to the data from public health experts, Parson opted to cave to his party’s base and big business donors and has now put hundreds of thousands of Missourian lives at risk. This was all done in the hope that he will gain re-election in November as a lame duck unelected governor. When this disaster of a reopening plan has run its course, there’s only one thing that I want to ask Governor Parson: was all of this blood on your hands worth it?

SLU 101, the summer orientation program for incoming students, is just around the corner as the end of the spring semester nears. After countless cancellations of on-campus activities because of the pandemic, SLU 101 is still set to take place this year—still, it will look different than in past years. The most notable change is that SLU 101 will be moving completely online in order to limit unnecessary social contact between incoming students and their families. 

Director of Orientation Susan Fanale said that SLU is looking to “make the best plans for the safety of all while still meeting the needs of our incoming new students and families.” 

According to Fanale, this summer’s SLU 101 for students will be handled through a three-phase approach. Fanale maintained that SLU will still live by the original SLU 101 session dates students signed up for since registration went live on March 2. SLU will provide a pre-SLU 101 online orientation platform for students to gain information before “attending” their SLU 101 session. The incoming students’ SLU 101 session will be a reduced and modified schedule hosted live through Zoom. Afterwards, there will be a post-SLU 101 experience with additional online orientation, including next steps as well as additional outreach provided to students from the event’s leaders.

This summer’s SLU 101 for families and guests will be handled through a two-phase approach, according to Fanale. SLU will provide an online orientation platform that families and guests can complete on their own time. Fanale asserted that nothing on the online orientation platform will be tied to the SLU 101 session that the students will “attend.” SLU will then provide some opt-in experiences that families and guests can “attend” to gain additional orientation information later in June through mid-July. These add-on experiences will be hosted either in Facebook Live or through Zoom.

Fanale stated that SLU is still using the SLU 101 goals and outcomes to design the program for the summer “since these reflect our mission and values as a university.” These goals and outcomes of the program can be found on the SLU 101 webpage on the university’s website.

The combined experience of online orientation modules and a two-day virtual, real-time SLU 101 session look to provide incoming students with an honest look at life at SLU and to set students up for success from the start. 

According to the SLU 101 webpage, the university has packed the experience with all of the information students will need to prepare for their first semester at SLU. For this reason, all incoming students are expected to attend. Through SLU summer orientation, incoming students will learn about academic expectations and available support services at SLU, explore ways to get involved with campus organizations and activities, work with advisers to map out a fall class schedule and meet new friends.

The 2020 SLU 101 freshmen dates will occur within nine separate two-day periods, starting on June 1 and ending on June 30. In terms of what incoming students should expect, SLU 101 will first start with a welcome session. There, they will meet their SLU 101 leader—an upperclassmen who will serve as guides during summer orientation at SLU. Students will then meet with an academic advisor, hear about student life and what to expect from college and make friends during evening virtual events planned by SLU 101 leaders.

The virtual SLU 101 session combined with the online orientation modules will provide incoming students with the information they need to feel confident and prepared for their first semester as a Billiken. Students can review the SLU 101 website to learn more about plans for 2020 SLU 101 orientation.

“We know that students and families have enjoyed the in-person SLU 101 program in the past and have had many positive things to say about their experience and interactions with others around campus during their SLU 101 visit,” said Fanale, “Our goal is still to provide an informative experience to students and families this summer through different methods to help them feel comfortable starting their life as a Billiken at Saint Louis University.” 

Fanale said that she also knows SLU’s campus community will continue to reach out to students and families in order to support them during this time of transition.

If students have any questions about SLU 101, contact Susan Fanale at susan.fanale@slu.edu or through slu101@slu.edu.

On Jan. 28, a week after the first coronavirus case was identified in the United States, Dr. Carter Mecher, a senior medical adviser at the Department of Veteran Affairs, sent an email to public health experts scattered around the government and universities warning them about the dangers of the virus. “The projected size of the outbreak already seems hard to believe,” said Mecher in his email to this group of health experts. It took six weeks after warnings from Mecher and top White House advisers for President Trump to finally take aggressive action to confront the coronavirus. This pandemic is now forecast to take tens of thousands of American lives. Many of these deaths could have been prevented if the Trump-led government took more aggressive action against the virus sooner.

Currently, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, 97 percent of the U.S. population is under stay-at-home or shelter-in-place orders. Even as the infection rate in the United States continues to rise, President Trump indicated that many states could reopen by May 1, and that he would share federal guidelines for restarting the economy with governors. I believe that deciding to reopen in some states while the curve has not even flattened yet is a disastrous idea that would make the economy and the infection rate even worse. 

If states start to reopen their economies right away by May 1, the infection rate would inevitably spike with less people practicing social distancing. As the infection rate for COVID-19 spikes, the U.S. health care system would become even more overwhelmed which could lead to more preventable deaths. With a spike in infection and death rates, I’m certain many people would not want to leave their homes. In this case, the economy would not even improve from re-opening businesses and more people would be dying from COVID-19. Morality aside, the economic benefits to reopen businesses this soon would definitely not outweigh the economic and human costs, so why is there such a large push to open up the economy in some states? While Trump did criticize Georgia governor Brian Kemp’s plan to re-open businesses within the state in the coming days, it was still extremely reckless for the president to even suggest that states could start reopening their economies as soon as May 1.

Additionally, President Trump has been responding to the pandemic by hyping up unproven COVID-19 treatments. Most notably, Trump has claimed that the drug hydroxychloroquine could be used to cure the virus even though medical experts completely disagree. Trump urged US citizens to take the anti-malaria drug in early April, but backed off when studies suggested hydroxychloroquine was ineffective in treating COVID-19 patients or contributed to higher death rates. Now, the President suggested that Americans could “clean” their bodies by injecting disinfectant to treat the coronavirus. Trump suggested this unproven COVID-19 treatment in response to Bill Bryan, head of the Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology division, touting disinfectants’ ability to eliminate coronavirus on surfaces. According to Harvard Toxicology, injecting bleach or drinking disinfectant causes hemolysis—where red blood cells that carry oxygen break apart—and cause liver damage. Additionally, many disinfectants can cause dangerous burns or bleeding in one’s stomach. Trump’s suggestion of these unproven treatments for the coronavirus in front of a national audience is extremely reckless and unsafe. This only encourages American citizens to try these “treatments” themselves and do harm to their bodies or potentially even die. By turning attention to unproven, harmful and ineffective treatments like hydroxychloroquine and injecting bleach, President Trump has only helped put more American lives in danger.

All in all, it would be dishonest of me to call Trump’s COVID-19 response anything but disastrous. In the early stages of the pandemic, his inaction in terms of slowing down the infection rate has contributed to thousands of preventable American deaths. Trumps’ aversion to science and facts are a danger to this country, especially during a deadly global pandemic. The President’s recklessness when it comes to reopening the economy and promoting unproven treatments will only end up taking more lives than saving them. The state of the economy should never be prioritized over human lives, especially since reopening businesses during this pandemic would not lead to much of an improvement anyway. For President Trump and some governors to suggest otherwise is extremely misguided and completely flies in the face of logic. During these trying times, the American people deserve a leader that has their best interests and general welfare in mind instead of a leader  that actively works against them.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, many employees around the country have been afforded the ability to work from home. However, there are some employees whose positions do not allow them the same luxury. These workers are known as “essential employees” and have been on the front lines of the pandemic. There are many essential workers still heading to work every day in the St. Louis area, including at SLU.

According to Vice President of Human Resources Mickey Luna, essential employees are defined as “those who are still required to come into work due to the nature of the services they perform in support of students and patients—and in compliance with state and local stay-at-home orders.” 

Luna said the lens through which SLU evaluated whether an employee is essential is whether they must be on campus to deliver the university’s educational and healthcare missions. “These are services that cannot be done remotely,” said Luna. In addition to healthcare workers, some positions deemed essential at SLU include public safety, custodial, maintenance and residential life employees.  

There are approximately 450 employees who have been deemed essential by SLU and are still coming into work on a semi-regular basis, according to Luna. For example, some maintenance workers may only be on campus for three days straight. The following week, those same maintenance workers may work only two days on site. “Of course, they are being paid for full-time work,” said Luna. Since many essential employees work on a rotating basis, the actual on-site number each day is much smaller. Luna said healthcare workers were not included in this number because a high percentage of these employees are still required to come in to serve patients.

In terms of workplace safety, Luna said that all essential employees are trained and instructed on how to follow CDC guidelines. “We are closely following all current guidance from the CDC and state and local departments,” said Luna. Social distancing practices have been instituted across employee units, and SLU has also required the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) when appropriate for some roles in compliance with guidance from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). According to Luna, this equipment may mostly include gloves and masks. Additionally, Luna said that all essential employees are required to be screened by Employee Health if they have any symptoms to ensure they receive care or take the necessary steps to isolate themselves if they suspect they have been exposed to or have symptoms of COVID-19. “We have also set aside housing for these individuals if they need to stay on campus to quarantine,” said Luna.

In regard to gradually re-opening the university, Luna said these plans are still underway and have not been finalized. “We currently do not envision everyone returning at once. We expect the return to be more gradual,” said Luna. Luna asserted that guidance from local, state and federal public health officials will ultimately decide how the university proceeds “with the safety of our students, faculty and staff as the guiding principle.”

When asked about if essential employees at SLU will receive hazard pay, Luna said, “No. For the most part, we do not believe employees who are providing essential services are encountering hazards or undue exposure to individuals who have tested positive.” The exception to this would be certain members of SLU’s medical staff, according to Luna.

One of the many essential employees at SLU who have still been going to work is Grounds Supervisor Jim Anthony. Anthony believes SLU Facilities Services, whether it’s grounds, maintenance, custodial or distribution, is essential to SLU’s day-to-day operations. “There are a lot of mechanical issues that need to be addressed, the buildings need to be cleaned and the grass keeps growing,” said Anthony. Work groups in Facilities Services are always operating even if university life is on hold, according to Anthony.

Anthony said the safety measure Facilities Services has taken as they relate to COVID-19 are social distancing (one grounds person per cart), hand washing, wearing a mask when necessary, small work groups and staff working on a modified schedule. In regard to how going to work has felt different since the pandemic, Anthony said the emptiness of campus feels like “summer break on steroids.” 

“It’s like a ghost town. However, there are a lot of dedicated people working hard to maintain the campus in anticipation of the students’ return,” said Anthony.

The main idea that Luna wanted to make clear was his and the university’s appreciation for essential SLU employees and all that they’ve done throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“First, let me say that we are deeply grateful to employees who are reporting to work each day, performing essential taks to meet SLU’s essential needs. We could not continue to serve our students and patients without them,” said Luna, “They have performed critical work to transform residence halls to safely house doctors, nurses and other caregivers, kept our campus safe and done the necessary work to position the university for when we can all start returning to campus. All members of the university owe them our gratitude and respect.”    

In late March, SLU unveiled a consolidated housing plan in order to combat the spread of COVID-19 on campus and to provide relief to healthcare employees and patients nearby. Under this housing plan, students living in residence halls who chose “standard precautions” housing were moved to Spring Hall while students living in on-campus apartments were moved to Marchetti Towers. Additionally, students who chose “advanced precautions” housing were moved to Grand Hall while students living in Robert May Hall were not forced to relocate. “Standard precautions” housing is aligned with St. Louis’ stay-at-home order while “advanced precautions” housing includes coordinated efforts to minimize face-to-face interactions during essential activities beyond what is required by the city’s stay-at-home order.  

The remaining residence halls and on-campus apartment complexes will be reserved for the needs of the St. Louis region. This would mostly include serving as temporary living quarters for medical staff and overflow space for hospital patients. SLU stated on the university’s website that they are working closely with SLUCare physicians, SSM Health physicians and administrators and public health efforts in the region to determine the best use of the residence halls as the virus spreads. SLU also noted that they designed a plan which separates these spaces from the reconsolidated spaces in which the students live.

Students who filled out an exemption request were required to live in Spring, Grand or Marchetti depending on their spring 2020 housing status and their preferred precaution level. However, students who did not receive approval for an exception to remain on campus were expected to move out by March 30. This deadline ensured that all eligible students would receive refunds for room and board.

In order to limit COVID-19 infections on campus, SLU has instituted a set of guidelines for the remaining students on the consolidated housing plan. No students will share living quarters, including apartments, even if the space has multiple bedrooms. There are no non-SLU visitors allowed in on-campus housing whatsoever. Additionally, there are no building-to-building visitors allowed on campus. The only exception to this is the Grand Hall dining space, where 10 or fewer students can congregate as long as they meet social distancing requirements. Room-to-room visits within a building also should be done in accordance with social distancing expectations. The spaces SLU designated for students who contract COVID-19 have been chosen to allow the least amount of exposure for students, faculty and staff. These spaces all come with thoughtfully designed plans on facilities needs, housekeeping needs and food and supply needs. Students suspected of or confirmed having COVID-19 will have to temporarily relocate from their assigned housing unit until medical experts agree it is safe for them to return to their dorms or apartments. 

Throughout this unprecedented pandemic that led to the implementation of the consolidated housing plan, students remaining on campus have faced some challenges. Junior Xander Sisco was in Marchetti East for his spring housing assignment and said the process for him to stay in that same apartment for consolidated housing was “really stressful.” The fact that Sisco had to get approved in order to stay on campus also made things more challenging for him. “Not knowing if I had to move for several weeks also added a ton of stress,” said Sisco. Sisco also had some concerns about consolidating students down into a few buildings. He thought this could potentially maximize contact between students on campus. SLU’s plan to address these types of concerns was to spread students out in on-campus housing. In this case, no building is operating at more than 50 percent capacity. Additionally, the consolidated housing plan states that at any time, the spread of the virus may require SLU to increase restrictions for both housing groups in consultation with or at the order of public health authorities.  

According to Lauren Davis, Assistant Director of Assignments and Marketing of SLU’s Housing & Res Life, the consolidated housing plan was a university-wide collaboration between multiple departments and the president’s office to “ensure the best decisions were made for our students, staff working within the halls, and the greater good of the community.” Davis clarified that the decisions regarding the buildings that would not be used by university housing during COVID-19 were made at a university and SSM level. 

There are currently around 250 students remaining on campus through the consolidation plan. Davis said that each is in their own space with their own bathroom “in order to have the ideal social distancing structure.” In terms of meal plan options, Davis said that all dining is grab and go and “self-serve” stations were eliminated in order to help flatten the curve. In order to lower risk of infection in SLU buildings, Davis said facilities and custodial services have been following a rigorous cleaning routine, adhering to CDC guidelines and guidelines from the university health center. 

In regard to the on-campus housing situation for the summer semester, Davis said, “It is a touch and go situation as we monitor the changes and updates of COVID-19 while also complying with state governing orders.” 

For further details on SLU’s consolidated housing plan, visit The Housing Information page on the university’s website.

With Bernie Sanders suspending his presidential campaign last week, the Democratic presidential nomination is all but wrapped up for Joe Biden. Barring any unexpected changes, the 2020 presidential election will be between Biden and the Republican incumbent Donald Trump. Besides having similar policy positions in some respects, Trump and Biden both share the fact that they have credible sexual assault allegations levied against them. 

Tara Reade, an aide to then-Senator Biden, claimed that Biden repeatedly touched her without her consent and sexually assaulted her when she worked under him in 1993. “It shattered my life,” Reade said in a March interview with journalist Katie Halper. While Trump has had widely publicized, credible sexual assault allegations surface since 2015, it is interesting how many media outlets have ignored or outright dismissed Reade’s allegations against Biden. Since Biden is running for the highest office in the country, I find it especially concerning that the press has been so unwilling to look very deeply into Reade’s allegations.

One of the most frustrating things about the response to Reade’s allegations by Biden supporters and the media is the hypocrisy. I have seen some voters and media members smear Reade as a liar and a Russian plant without any evidence to back up their claims. Believing women should not have a partisan bias. The Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, which is set up to help surviviors of rape and sexual assault, even refused to fund a #MeToo investigation into allegations against Biden. This is an especially interesting decision considering that Reade’s allegations against Biden are just as credible and offer the same amount of evidence as Christin Blasey Ford’s allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. This organization was set up to assist and provide resources for survivors of sexual assault, so why is there an exception for Reade? Is the #MeToo movement really about believing women or does this only apply to women who accuse Republican politicians and officials? If the former really is the case, Time’s Up would not have dismissed Reade’s allegations against Biden so quickly.

This blatant hypocrisy displayed by supposed allies of sexual assault survivors reminds me of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal that came to light in 1998. Monica Lewinsky, the 22-year-old White House intern, was engaged in an affair with the 49-year-old president Clinton. Despite the significant age and power differences between the two individuals when this affair occurred, Lewinsky was shamed and ridiculed by the public and media for her relationship with Clinton. Although Clinton had sexual assault and misconduct allegations against him dating to his time as a politician in Arkansas, he was painted as the innocent victim in this situation by many. The media responses to the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and the Reade allegations show how far this system is willing to go to discredit women who implicate powerful men in predatory and abusive behavior.

In 2017, multiple women came forward to accuse Democratic Senator Al Franken of sexual misconduct. Upon hearing this news, around 30 Senate Democrats urged the Senator from Minnesota to step down, which he obliged. I thought this was the correct way for Democrats to handle this situation and would set the standard for future allegations against Democratic politicians. However, that all went out the window when Reade’s sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden came to light this year. Why are the allegations against Joe Biden held to a different standard than the credible accusations against Brett Kavanaugh, Roy Moore and Donald Trump? The fact that Biden has barely been questioned or vetted on Reade’s accusations by the media is deeply disturbing and hypocritical. The ugly attacks levied against Reade by the media and Biden supporters in response to her interview with Halper only reinforces the hesitancy of sexual assault survivors to speak out against prominent public figures. 

Believing women should not be conditional depending on the letter next to the name of the politicians that are accused. The Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund’s refusal to investigate Reade’s allegations against Biden shows how the #MeToo movement has been co-opted by partisans to score political points rather than call attention to the voices and stories of sexual assault survivors. I believe Tara Reade as much as I believed Christine Blasey Ford, but it seems Time’s Up can’t say the same. Ultimately, the American people deserve much better than having to choose between two alleged rapists to be the country’s next president.