The Daily Northwestern, the de facto newspaper of both Northwestern University and Evanston, Illinois, ran a poll asking whether the United States should admit a certain embattled ethnic group into the United States as refugees. Of the students who responded, 68.8 percent answered “no” and 31.1 percent answered “yes”. There was no “not sure” choice.

This was in 1938, and the embattled ethnic group was Jews, fleeing Nazi Germany. Today we’d be astonished that anyone would welcome Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany with anything but sympathy and open arms, especially before Hitler’s mass murders were even considered. Unfortunately, contemporary Americans, even college-aged liberal types, weren’t so into the idea of accepting refugees, even ones which we now realize had very legitimate reasons to be leaving their home country.

Refugee crises have defined 20th century conflict, since people now are so much more mobile than they ever were before and, proportionately, refugee populations are much smaller. The United States has committed to accepting 10,000 refugees in 2016, according to The Washington Post. Across a population of over 300,000,000, this is absolutely negligible. It will not affect our economy and they will not steal our jobs.

So why, then, are we so paranoid about refugees as a nation? Yesterday, Nov. 19, the House of Representatives voted in a nearly veto-proof majority to approve de facto impossible restrictions against new Syrian refugees. It’s unlikely to pass with a similar majority in the Senate, but the point still stands: America is paranoid about new Syrian refugees.

The point of terrorism is to terrorize. It is to inspire fear in the enemy. It is to inspire paranoia, angst and anger. The attacks of Sept. 11 killed three thousand, but also inspired warrantless wiretapping, a war against the wrong country, and paranoia, anger and fear directed at innocent Muslim-Americans. If, as many Americans believed, the terrorists hate us for our freedom and democracy, than the very last thing we ought to give up to defeat them is our freedom and democracy— which of course includes our ostensibly liberal attitudes towards immigration.

Were the attacks in Paris anything different? Syrians are fleeing Daesh-controlled areas in the hundreds of thousands. They are fleeing an ultra-theocratic, fascistic, ruthless state which has no scruples against executing people for the crime of being moderate. These attacks against innocent Parisians in bars and at an Eagles of Death Metal concert (not actually a death metal band, by the way) were not designed to inspire confidence in Daesh as an organization. They were designed to inspire fear of Syrian refugees.

The Triangle’s Editorial Board agrees: don’t let the terrorists win. We support the inclusion of Syrian refugees into American society, and believe that the United States can, and should, accept more.

The post Don’t let the terrorists win. appeared first on The Triangle.

Imagine: A foreign war divides the country. Widespread protests at campuses from one border to another. Widespread civil rights injustice in plain sight before the nation. Police brutality caught on camera for the first time. A contentious Democratic primary between a proven civil rights leader and an establishment candidate, countered by sheer insanity on the Republican side. Tensions flare at universities across the country… culminating in the Kent State massacre of student protesters by police on May 4, 1970.

Sound familiar? We’ve been here before. Sure, the protests are over microaggressions and drone strikes and not lynchings and the Vietnam War draft, and it’s Bernie Sanders instead of Hubert Humphrey, and Donald Trump instead of Barry Goldwater, but if you look around it’s clear that history is repeating itself. The question is when, and where, will it all end?

Times have changed a little, of course. With the Internet and apps like Yik Yak, racial slurs and death threats can anonymously reach their targets in seconds. For instance, Howard University, a historically black college in Washington D.C., received a threat of racially-directed violence Nov. 12 and has stated its intentions to raise security Nov. 13. as a result, a situation that our own Drexel student body should be familiar enough with. (Though that threat wasn’t racially motivated, at least to our knowledge.)

What hasn’t changed much is the bigotry. It’s still around, it’s ever present, and, unable to get by in the open. It’s switched to much more subtle techniques, like institutional racism, subtle discrimination and momentum from the pre-civil rights era. There is still an overwhelming income disparity between whites and blacks, leaving one to prosper while the other is far more likely to live in poverty. Blacks also compose a majority within America’s prisons, and are disproportionately frequent victims of police violence.

Sure, we’ve made progress: a black person, in general, no longer has to worry extensively about being lynched. Unfortunately, “whites can no longer get away scot-free with murdering a black person in the town square” isn’t a great yardstick for social progress.

The protests at the University of Missouri, and at Yale, and at Ithaca, are only the beginings of a much larger movement. A new civil rights movement is upon us, and it is for our leaders to decide: will it end in real change, or will it end in another Kent State massacre?

The post Deja vu all over again appeared first on The Triangle.

Imagine: A foreign war divides the country. Widespread protests at campuses from one border to another. Widespread civil rights injustice in plain sight before the nation. Police brutality caught on camera for the first time. A contentious Democratic primary between a proven civil rights leader and an establishment candidate, countered by sheer insanity on the Republican side. Tensions flare at universities across the country… culminating in the Kent State massacre of student protesters by police on May 4, 1970.

Sound familiar? We’ve been here before. Sure, the protests are over microaggressions and drone strikes and not lynchings and the Vietnam War draft, and it’s Bernie Sanders instead of Hubert Humphrey, and Donald Trump instead of Barry Goldwater, but if you look around it’s clear that history is repeating itself. The question is when, and where, will it all end?

Times have changed a little, of course. With the Internet and apps like Yik Yak, racial slurs and death threats can anonymously reach their targets in seconds. For instance, Howard University, a historically black college in Washington D.C., received a threat of racially-directed violence Nov. 12 and has stated its intentions to raise security Nov. 13. as a result, a situation that our own Drexel student body should be familiar enough with. (Though that threat wasn’t racially motivated, at least to our knowledge.)

What hasn’t changed much is the bigotry. It’s still around, it’s ever present, and, unable to get by in the open. It’s switched to much more subtle techniques, like institutional racism, subtle discrimination and momentum from the pre-civil rights era. There is still an overwhelming income disparity between whites and blacks, leaving one to prosper while the other is far more likely to live in poverty. Blacks also compose a majority within America’s prisons, and are disproportionately frequent victims of police violence.

Sure, we’ve made progress: a black person, in general, no longer has to worry extensively about being lynched. Unfortunately, “whites can no longer get away scot-free with murdering a black person in the town square” isn’t a great yardstick for social progress.

The protests at the University of Missouri, and at Yale, and at Ithaca, are only the beginings of a much larger movement. A new civil rights movement is upon us, and it is for our leaders to decide: will it end in real change, or will it end in another Kent State massacre?

The post Deja vu all over again appeared first on The Triangle.

Coffee is great. We all love coffee here. You don’t stay up three days straight during midterms week being indifferent to coffee. With that in mind, let’s talk about the companies that give us our caffeine fix here at Drexel. Our Saxby’s coffee shop is at 34th Street and Lancaster Avenue, and the franchise is operated by Drexel co-ops. We wrote about it in back in April when it opened. It’s a popular venue where students congregate at the notorious second-most caffeinated campus in America—a title Business Insider generously awarded our twitching student body. (The first? University of Pennsylvania. We’ll catch up eventually guys, we just have to guzzle faster.)

In addition to Saxby’s, us Drexel students also have a plethora of additional coffee shops: the Starbucks in Gerri C. LeBow Hall, Joe at Chestnut Square, the other Starbucks at 34th and Chestnut, ThirtyOne 41 in the Main Building, and the other, other Starbucks at 34th and Walnut. (Protip: It’s frequently less crowded than the other 34th and Chestnut Starbucks.)

Presumably in an attempt to keep the ratio of Starbucks to non-Starbucks coffee shops on or near campus at a nice 1:1 ratio, a new Starbucks is opening in Drexel’s newest University-affiliated building, the Summit. This new Starbucks will be directly across the street from the existing student-run Saxby’s. Shafted.

Ordinarily, we here at the Editorial Board would be welcoming a new coffee shop on campus and likely bemoaning the lack of easily accessible coffee near our offices, since we have to trek a whopping 400 feet to Joe each time we’re in danger of fainting from exhaustion. If your caffeine addiction is as prominent and concerning as ours, all that trekking can add up fast. Heck, it might get to several miles and account for hundreds of feet of elevation change a day.

Anyway, we have to ask: why does this new Starbucks have to open directly across the street from the student-run Saxbys? Its location means it’s directly competing for Saxby’s customers and, because it’s in a university building, it will no doubt attract similar clientele. Our student-run Saxby’s is something unique— a franchise run for the purpose of education. Total Trump move to stick a multi-billion dollar franchise across the street, right?

Which brings us to our second qualm with this new Starbucks: do we actually need another Starbucks? Our non-Starbucks options are Joe and Saxby’s. ThirtyOne 41 serves Seattle’s Best Coffee, which coincidentally is owned by Starbucks. (Plus, let’s get real, Seattle’s Best is to coffee as Milwaukee’s Best is to beer. Ew.) Sometimes we get a nice coffee truck on campus, like Rival Brothers, but they’re not around every day. There’s also 7-11, whose coffee is questionable, and Wawa, which is perfection in the form of a convenience store, but really far away.

Why not bring in a local franchise? Or an independent coffee shop? (Or a Wawa? Please? Maybe to replace the Subway in Northside?) Our campus undoubtedly needs more caffeine if we’re to claim our rightful spot at the top of Business Insider’s list of most caffeinated campuses. If it could be quality caffeine, locally roasted, fair trade, locally owned and operated, the whole nine yards, it would be even better.
Three Starbuckses (Starbucksii? Starbucksen?) ought to be enough for anyone. Do we really need a fourth? Especially one competing directly with our grand experiment in student-run educational business? Our quivering typing hands think not, but then again we’re due for our midnight cup o’ Joe.

The post Another Starbucks? appeared first on The Triangle.

A recent BBC Sunday Morning Live segment had a feature on interfaith marriage, calling on the opinions of people from all different faiths including Jagmeet Singh, a representative of the nonprofit organization Basics of Sikhi. Around 15 minutes into the segment, Singh interrupted to say, “I have to say, Sikhs in Punjab are being killed in Punjab and nobody’s reporting it. Please report it.” The move was not received well by the BBC spokesperson and Singh was removed from the panel by the time they returned from commercial break.

Sikh activists have been attempting to bring light to a media blackout that has been occurring in Punjab on the anti-Sikh violence. The violence was incited after an Indian police shot at Sikh protestors who were condemning the recent desecration of their holy books. The altercation left two people dead and many more injured, according to the Indian Express. The only three other stories from major news outlets at the time were by the BBC, all of which were in Hindi. In response to the violence, the Indian military was called in to take control of the violence. The government has also called for the media blackout, according to Huffington Post writer and assistant professor at Trinity University Simran Singh.

Jagmeet Singh called upon the attention of an act of incredibly sinister and chilling implications. Manipulating the media tends to be the cloak for grievous human rights violations. In this case, the Sikh communities think back to the anti-Sikh massacre of the 1980s which was also preceded with a media blackout. Cases like this should push you to think critically about what is reported in the media, and why. And although media manipulation may not be always used to cover up violence such as as this, it can definitely be used for smaller wrongs.

All media is developed around the agendas and biases of various involved members. Whether the information this media presents an accurate portrayal is up to your judgment. It’s always important to be very inquisitive about what the media is telling you — and even more so about what it isn’t telling you.

Here are some signs to look out for in the press: expressive word choice such as words like “radical,” “outbursts” and “riot.” Who are they choosing to interview? What kind of questions are they asking? Are they strangely focused on one aspect of the issue? Is the interviewee trying to say something that the reporter is interrupting? Does what the interviewee says contradict the headline? Does a report seem a bit off to you? Is the report saying someone “won the debate by a landslide” when you weren’t too impressed by it? Hold onto those feelings. They may be saying more than you think.

The post What they’re not telling you appeared first on The Triangle.

This past week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made this statement in his address at the World Zionist Congress:

“Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jew. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, ‘If you expel them, they’ll all come here (to Palestine).’ According to Netanyahu, Hitler then asked: “What should I do with them?” and the mufti replied: “Burn them.”

The implication is, of course, that a Palestinian leader (and by extension the Palestinian people) was responsible for the Holocaust. This patently false statement has drawn wide criticism from nearly every international figure, as well as nearly everyone with a Facebook or Twitter account. It even triggered a response from the German government, who made it very clear that their nation was the perpetrator of the Holocaust.

After the backlash, Netanyahu tried to backtrack on his statement, claiming instead that Hitler was indeed responsible, but still insisting on the mufti playing a large role in the plan to exterminate Europe’s Jews.

This statement is not only historically inaccurate, but further alienates the rest of the world, including Jews, who would otherwise support Israel. Can Israel really afford more ill-will from the international community at this time? It is now possible to say that the Israeli-Palestine conflict is caused by bad leadership on both sides, but Israel is doing itself no favors with their preeminent elected official making statements like these?

Bibi Netanyahu joins our own illustrious Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee in making wildly inaccurate statements about the Holocaust and the policies of the Nazi Party. Allusions to modern history’s greatest butchers ought to be used with caution, and even then only when appropriate. Netanyahu’s statements are both grossly inaccurate and inappropriate, and anyone with half a brain and a keyboard is saying it as loud as possible on social media. If Israel expects international support, it ought to elect less inflammatory and more reasonable leaders.

The post Inaccurate and inappropriate appeared first on The Triangle.

When an online post made a threat against Philadelphia-area universities Oct. 5, the FBI passed on the information to the public in an “abundance of caution.” In that same abundance, Drexel University’s Department of Public Safety tightened security procedures around campus, banning guests from both residence halls and the W. W. Hagerty Library and mandating the presentation of DragonCards upon entrance to buildings. Though the threat failed to materialize, the University has continued posting public safety officials around campus buildings to check student IDs .

We’re all for increasing the amount of guards on duty and patrol in light of shooting threats, especially after the killings in Roseburg. We like the fact that classes continued and life on campus carried on regardless of the threat. Our university encouraged us to focus on our education, not the fear the threat sparked—and it was much appreciated.

But, at the same time, we’re deeming the continued DragonCard security measures arbitrary, a case of security theater, if you will. A half-hearted ID check is an annoyance to students. It hardly provides any extra safety for us in the case of an attack, since the feared “school shooter” would very likely be a Drexel student. Moving freely around campus is important to us as students. Running in-between classes, work and study locations, the checks are more of an inconvenience than a precaution.

The Department of Public Safety is a frequent source of reactionary policies like this one. They seem to stem from a desire to be seen doing “something” after events that provoke safety implications occur. But if there is some sort of comprehensive philosophy behind these new policies, the Drexel community is not privy to it. Especially for permanent policies, it’s important that these changes be made in consultation with everyone involved.

Surely people are best protected when they understand and participate in their own safety programs?

It is our hope at The Triangle that public safety will make itself open to both praise and criticism from the community it serves as it reviews its security policies. We expect that students will speak rather than standing idly by as our campus is reshaped with new building access policies or security standards that shape our daily lives.

The post Arbitrary safety measures without security appeared first on The Triangle.

On Sept. 14, the Wesleyan University student newspaper, The Argus, published an opinion piece titled “Why Black Lives Matter Isn’t What You Think,” a critique of the Black Lives Matter movement.

This article asserted, amongst other things, that the Black Lives Matter movement inspired or had a part in the assassination of police officers. This is an extremely dubious claim, based nearly entirely on anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. It cited a wide variety of inaccurate statistics and featured fact-checking on the level of the (national) FOX News Corporation. That opinion is entirely the view of the author, and the editorial board of The Triangle does not endorse it in any way.

Nor was that opinion endorsed by the editorial board of The Argus. Despite this, theft and vandalism of The Argus offices the following day, a call to boycott and a petition to the university administrators to defund the newspaper. Students complained that the paper did not provide a “safe space for the voices of students of color” and vowed to continue the boycott (involving continued destruction of newspapers) until certain reforms were made, including social justice and diversity training for all staff members and front-page space for marginalized groups and voices.

A student exercised their right to free speech to express an unpopular opinion. This is the purpose of the student newspaper’s opinion section–to provide a venue for opinions, even if they’re unpopular or just plain bad. Providing a “safe space” is just not possible while maintaining a shred of journalistic integrity.

Journalistic ethics frequently enters a gray area when choosing between the expression of free speech and the danger of hate speech. In school newspapers, we pose this challenge to undergraduates who are at the same time attempting to meet strict deadlines and operate what is essentially a small business, while still maintaining a heavy study schedule. Sometimes, mistakes are made.

The feelings of anger, frustration and the like expressed by the student body of Wesleyan isn’t surprising, if understandable. The reaction and target, however, is just as bad as the opinion itself. Attempting to silence a core student forum to protect students from harmful opinions does more damage than the harmful opinions themselves. Without the student newspaper, students might have no public space to express their opinions in a professional and official way, no way to acquire accurate information catered to their own perspective and no way to filter what is rumor and what is fact. Without the student newspaper, we are all subject to danger of being fed biased information from our universities and other sources, and, most dangerously, rumor and hearsay. Don’t fight the newspaper, use it (or you can write for it, too!).

The post Reacting to bad opinions appeared first on The Triangle.

Sometimes we like it inside, but sometimes we like it out on the street. As an urban campus, food trucks are important to us here at Drexel. They mean we get to eat what we like at a price we like it. They offer variety, flexibility, and a wide array of cultural cuisines. They rotate frequently, so frequently you’ll often be surprised by what you can find.

Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell has introduced bill No. 150600, an amendment to the “Sidewalk Vendors in Neighborhood Business Districts” section of the city code, which will limit the total number of vendors on Drexel’s campus to 25, and are prohibiting vending at any but approved locations. What does this mean in practice? No more food trucks on 32nd Street, or north of Arch Street, and since it the amendment limits food truck operating hours, Insomnia Cookies will become Kind-of-Late-for-a-Weeknight Cookies. Ostensibly this amendment addresses concerns about pedestrian and crosswalk safety, as well as vendor licenses and inspections, but it completely neglects the culture that the University has developed around food trucks.

What the Editorial Board cannot understand about this amendment, is why is it needed? Certainly there is an issue with pedestrian safety at 32nd and Market Streets which is exacerbated by food trucks, but why revamp the whole system to get three food trucks to move? The amendment bans food trucks at that location, and also slaps them with a wide variety of new regulations, on what kind of generators they can use, additional inspections, guarantees that food trucks are roadworthy (sometimes a genuine concern for vendors on Ludlow between 31st and 32nd, potentially) and formal leases on allowed food truck spaces.

The amendment is also being pushed as a method to improve hygiene, but all trucks already have a food service license and are subject to regular health inspections, same as a restaurant kitchen. There is no need for more regulation here.

Right now we have a large selection of lightly-regulated food trucks that must compete in order to sustain customers, a facet of the system which acts as a sort of checks-and-balance system for quality. Long term licenses for vending spots would mean that food truck owners would have no incentive to improve. What’s the point if there’s no chance anyone can take their spot? We like our rotating, unpredictable, cheap and enormously varied food truck selection, thank you very much. We’re certainly not getting any of those at the Handschumacher Dining Center.
This amendment is an unnecessarily ham-fisted attempt to control food trucks in Drexel’s campus, and will only result in damage to our vibrant and popular food truck scene. The Editorial Board urges Philadelphia City Council to vote “no” on Bill No. 150600.

The post What the truck? appeared first on The Triangle.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane was indicted Aug. 6 with charges including perjury and abuse of office. Coming at the conclusion of a nine-month grand jury investigation, this is not surprising. What boggles the imagination however, is that the attorney general, who strongly denies any wrongdoing, has said that she will stay in office even while undergoing a criminal trial.

Being an effective public official requires having the public trust. Kane might not have to worry about re-election until 2016, but it might prove hard to credibly prosecute crimes while she has her own trial to worry about. It’s about whether she’s guilty or not — as Richard Nixon found, even the risk of prosecution can make holding a major office untenable. That makes her resignation long overdue.

Gov. Wolf put it lightly when he asked the defiant official to step down over these “serious charges.” Per the Montgomery County criminal complaint, “Kane violated the criminal laws of Pennsylvania and the solemn oath she swore upon assuming the office of Attorney General by engaging in a pattern of unlawful acts and deceit through the release of confidential investigative information and secret Grand Jury information and then testifying falsely during her appearance before the Grand Jury to conceal her crimes.”

Her alleged motive for releasing the information was to embarrass Frank G. Fina, a prosecutor who had led an investigation into corruption among Philadelphia Democrats. Kane chose not to prosecute any of them, but when the Philadelphia District Attorney later did, most suspects pled guilty. Kane believed Fina had been the source of a harshly critical Philadelphia Inquirer story relating to Kane’s decision in that case.

Got all that? Kane made a mistake, and is now alleged to have committed a crime to get revenge, and then another crime by lying to cover it up. People have lost their jobs over accusations of a lot less. If she truly believes herself to be innocent, then by all means she should defend herself in court, but she can’t in good conscience leave the people of Pennsylvania on the hook while her case drags on.

The post It’s time for Kane to call it quits appeared first on The Triangle.