In the words of Lara Pulver’s Irene Adler, “Smart is the new sexy.” If you’ve been paying attention to the hype around a new Fox mini-series, you might just believe that’s true. The popularity of “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey,” a collaboration between Neil deGrasse Tyson and Seth MacFarlane, among others, is the latest example of efforts to influence popular culture.

From TED talks and the Khan Academy to a Kickstarter campaign to bring back “Reading Rainbow” (which raised its $1 million goal in just 12 hours), there is a strong interest in nurturing the curiosity of this hyper-stimulated, media-obsessed generation. In the late ‘60s and ‘70s, the days of “Star Trek,” “Star Wars” and Carl Sagan’s original “Cosmos: A Personal Voyage,” the world was looking up at the night sky, wondering what was out there, and our entertainment reflected this scientific curiosity.

Many of the people who consider themselves science enthusiasts are no stranger to Tyson’s very public and surprisingly popular campaign to bring complex scientific concepts to the layman’s awareness; but Tyson, Fox and funny man “Family Guy” creator MacFarlane make strange bedfellows to the casual viewer. While MacFarlane has been quite vocal — though perhaps less visible than Tyson, an astrophysicist — about his enthusiasm for scientific discovery, this mixing of science and Hollywood seems to be the latest and perhaps most successful pivot toward America’s renewed interest in scientific popular culture.

With the popularity of “The Big Bang Theory” (CBS), “Doctor Who” (BBC America), “CSI” and “NCIS” (CBS), the short lived “Firefly” (Fox), and the box office success of films like “Gravity” and the “Star Trek” reboot, it seems that “nerd culture” is making the slow and sometimes painful transition from the realms of subculture to the mainstream.

While some people can sit down and enjoy these shows for their entertainment value, there is a group of people who find true inspiration in science fiction. In the days of the original “Cosmos,” MacFarlane was one of those people, and his investment in the reboot is his effort to bring that sense of wonder and discovery that characterized the days when humans were determined to go “where no one has gone before,” to a new generation.

When “Cosmos” first premiered in 1980, it was part of a culture that was obsessed with space and the distant future. Today, its modern update exists in a new political and cultural environment, attempting to bring back some of that sense of wonder and discovery. At its peak in 1966, NASA’s budget was around $5 billion, or about 4.41 percent of that year’s budget. That means that less than 4.5 percent of the budget launched the Apollo program that sent a man to the moon and the Voyager program that sent a satellite further out of this solar system than any other manmade object.

When the American economy suffers, science programs at all levels are among the first things to go. It’s very easy to see million dollar research projects or extracurricular school initiatives as luxuries that can be cut when times are tough, but the short term savings that result from cutting science investments don’t outweigh the consequences of a generation of students who don’t value scientific literacy.

Shows like “Cosmos” and “Star Trek” as well as films like “2001: A Space Odyssey” and “Star Wars” sparked an interest in scientific exploration and new technology. The gadgets and gizmos that seemed more like magic than science are becoming realities today. Things like flip phones, smaller and more accurate medical scanners, and tablet computers were called communicators, medical tricorders, and “pads” in Star Trek. Finding the creative inspiration that sometimes comes from experiencing a thought-out fictional universe is the first step to making that future a reality. It’s that inspiration, that sense of wonder and discovery that “Cosmos” attempts to provide, and it doesn’t disappoint.

When we have a goal to achieve we can do amazing things: we put a man on the moon, build marble monuments to love and engineer structures that seem to defy the laws of physics but somehow manage to stand for centuries. History is full of testaments to human ingenuity and creativity, but it requires an initial investment. If we want to secure our place as global leaders, not to be displaced by growing powers in other parts of the world, we can’t neglect our scientific ambitions.

There’s a need for more than just scientists and doctors, we need that curiosity that sparks a new wave of technological advancement, medical discoveries and scientific breakthroughs. “Cosmos” is the brain-child of like-minded people from different worlds who saw the need to revisit our nation’s sense of exploration and wonder. It’s the rallying cry for those in my generation who would give anything to experience the moon landing for the first time, for the nerds who pour over images of multi-colored nebulae and the bright lights of distant galaxies from the Hubble Telescope and wonder what else is out there. This show can be the beginning of our journey to new discoveries, but we can’t let the moment pass without something to show for it.

In 2012, NASA’s budget (approximately $17 billion) was less than 0.48 percent — you aren’t mistaken, less than one half of one percent — of the federal budget; and we continue to cut it. This year, Congress is set to approve a budget that would put the agency’s funding back around to the same level as the 2007 fiscal year.

With the rise of Silicon Valley and the rapid expansion of the tech industry, it would be easy to assume that America has a secure footing in the world of science and industry, but we can’t afford to let our curiosity wane or we’ll be forced to watch from the sidelines as other countries pass us by. Our fascination with intelligence has to be more than just a fad. As “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey” wraps up this Sunday, it should serve as a reminder to always stay curious.

Brionne Powell is a sophomore political science major at Drexel University. She can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Science fiction inspires appeared first on The Triangle.

Diversity is important. Not just the kind of “diversity” that Drexel’s Office of Equality and Diversity handles, but a much broader sense of diversity. Diversity of colors, yes, but also diversity of people, culture, places and, most importantly, diversity of ideas. When we as human beings from many different backgrounds come together we exchange ideas that are totally alien and different to one another, and in the process create ideas that never existed before.

People fear the unknown, the different, the unconventional, the weird. We learned this through thousands of years of evolution, where the “unknown” meant a dark cave full of bears, or a giant carnivorous plant, or some other comic primitive danger. Today, we don’t often deal with caves full of bears; we deal with new and uncomfortable social experiences: your first Powelton party,your first Drexel class, your first job interview. (Hopefully not in that order.)

We’ve been averaging well over two mass shootings a week this year in the U.S., and one of this week’s was committed by a certain person (who we shall not name, to avoid glamorizing the mass shooter) at a certain university in southern California, targeting women in particular. He left behind a manifesto, killed six and injured 13. He committed these acts because he hated women. He hated women because of his extreme sexual frustration. His sexual frustration came from his anti-social behavior, and his anti-social behavior was amplified by the freedom to pick and choose information to reinforce his world-view at will.

Through websites like Reddit, Buzzfeed, The Huffington Post, and so on, where information is contributed not necessarily by professional journalists, but by average everyday people, we are exposed to a vast quantity and variety of information. To read every viewpoint and analyze every idea is impossible, and not at all worthwhile, because most of them are, let’s face it, terrible. We have to filter the information we are exposed to and only read what we believe is most pertinent to ourselves.

The problem comes when we, through our filters, set up an “echo chamber.” When we filter what we hear and what we see to only that information which fits our world view, we limit our ability to form new ideas. The Neo-Nazi community visits only Stormfront for its news, and by extension, its ideas. The Pick-Up Artist frequents r/mensrights and r/PUA. The “Die cis scum” trans-post-feminist frequents only Tumblr sites where made-up gender-neutral pronouns are mandatory and commenters who fail to use the requisite trigger warnings are banned. The fundamentalist Baptist believes only his minister’s sermons, which condemns women’s clothing trends, and the radical Islamist listens only to his imam condemning women in general. And so on.

These are all echo chambers. No new ideas are introduced in these environments, and existing ideas are compounded until they are absolute fact, and radical acts can be committed by the true believers. Communities like r/mensrights, Stormfront, etc. become cults, because exposure to new ideas is extremely limited.

The mass shooter we are dealing with here frequented PUAhate.com, where self-proclaimed haters of pick-up artists posted to vent their frustration at the pick-up artist community, not because they were a load of deluded misogynist pricks, but because they felt ripped off by the pick-up artist community when its methods failed to allow them to “pick up” girls.

Pick-up artists speak of “alpha” and “beta” males, and of “taking the red pill” (meaning suddenly becoming attractive to women through Matrix-like enlightenment), and speak of women as one-dimensional objects to be acquired and not as people. Members of PUAhate.com’s fora, in their enlightenment, spoke also of “alpha” and “beta” males, and generally made use of the same vocabulary. What is very important to note here is that no new ideas were introduced when this reactionary community formed. Everyone posting in those fora was still a misogynist prick; they just intensely disliked people who were at least honest about it. Though forum members had escaped the pick-up artist community, PUAhate.com was still part of the same echo chamber, and still echoed the same hateful views of women and the same outdated and obsolete views of masculinity.

If this mass shooter had, say, joined an on-campus organization (like, say, the campus newspaper, for example), he would have been exposed to new social situations, and to new people who would have hopefully been able to help shape his world view into one which focused less on the negative aspects of his life. If he had spent his online time not on PUAhate.com, but on, say, some kind of forum dedicated to a hobby other than hating specific groups of people, he might not have committed such a heinous act.

Which brings me to my main point: Terrorists, mass shooters, etc. do what they do because they don’t have anything in their life but hate. They don’t have hobbies, they usually don’t have jobs, or a wide circle of friends outside their hate group. (Or, in the case of the postal shootings of the ‘80s and ‘90s, people who have had their benefits drastically slashed after decades of service.) They don’t have anything valuable to do with their lives except end it, and to end the lives of those around them for personal glory or to advance some “great cause.” Most of them have been thinking along the same lines for a long, long time, and the warning signs are obvious.
So, if you know someone in a similar situation, or, more importantly, if you yourself are in a similar situation, get out of it. Seek help. Learn to overcome your social anxiety or find someone to help you. Go to parties, meet attractive people. Put down the World of Warcraft, the Reddit, the EVE Online, and go outside. Join a student organization. (Triangle meetings are at 6:30 in MacAlister 3010, free pizza provided to all members by the way.) Study abroad! Try something different every once in a while, expose yourself to a wide variety of people and ways of thinking, and your quality of life will improve dramatically.

Justin Roczniak is the Op-Ed editor of The Triangle. He can be contacted at justin.roczniak@thetriangle.org.

The post Hate and the echo chamber appeared first on The Triangle.

In a land of infinite opportunity, within a city of strong-minded individuals, in an institution that promotes diversity and forward thinking, resides a young lady who can’t help but wonder when her reality grew out of boys and girls climbing trees as equals, into adult men and women caught in a constant power struggle between feminists and misogynists.

Granted that extreme viewpoints aren’t the best comparison when used to elucidate a general idea, but riddle me this: How would you choose to express concern in an argument that has been thoroughly scrutinized by so many ideologists, philosophers and realists, each of whom have been driven to the edge of reason and yet not found a solution? Would you be willing to gracefully acknowledge the uncomfortable truth that all men command authority simply by virtue of the fact that they are absolutely and unequivocally male?

The innate human needs to be appreciated for who we are and to have equality present themselves as the two defining challenges to the ethos of any era. Ideas stemming from these convictions motivate the most remarkable changes that have been influential in measurably altering life as we know it. Such progress brings with it the amelioration of the human condition in reference to the disintegration of the gender bias.

Sheryl WuDunn, the first Asian American to win a Pulitzer Prize, got it right when she said, “It’s no accident that the countries that have enjoyed an economic takeoff have been those that educated girls and then gave them the autonomy to move to the cities to find work.”
As creatures of habit it is significantly easier for us to conform to familiar and comfortable patterns rather than make a conscious effort to effect change. To dispute traditional gender roles that have been upheld for centuries takes true grit, abundant perseverance and aplomb.

George Bernard Shaw once said, “Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.” It is in this very spirit that I propose we all take a moment today to re-examine the eternal conflict that is gender discrimination.

I have chosen to align my career interests with the field of technology and computing, which is notorious for being unyieldingly patriarchal. But even a pragmatic, political being like myself was admittedly taken aback by how deeply ingrained gender disparity is in our society today. Not two weeks ago, a middle-aged woman who is the regional manager for the software and IT departments in a renowned chemical company in Philadelphia arrived in our classroom with two of her male employees to give a presentation about the inner workings of their company and the skills potential employers seek when hiring co-op students.

She provided valuable information and initially portrayed a very convincing picture of a confident woman who had been successful in her career of choice. However, once she started speaking about the qualities and level of competence desired of the students by their future employers, the entire focus of her talk shifted to degrading the capabilities of women in the computing society.

She presented to a class of college freshmen — who can be very impressionable, especially when it comes to adapting to the opinions of potential co-op employers — myriad examples of women who couldn’t hold their own in interviews, women who had bad handshakes, women ill-informed about advancements in their field of interest, and women who lacked talent in technology to the point where they couldn’t answer questions based on material they had been taught in class. A good 45 minutes later her talk reached its end and the class was dismissed. I stayed seated until the last of my peers had left, shocked by what I had just witnessed.

A modern world that boasts of gender equality even within the most impenetrable of spheres is and will certainly remain a fantasy until the unduly victimized change their attitude and learn the value of amour propre. Sheryl Sandberg, the chief operating officer of Facebook and the best-selling author of “Lean in — Why We Have Too Few Women Leaders,” gave a very important message to all women aspiring to succeed in any field anywhere in the world when she said, “Believe in yourself, negotiate for yourself, and own your own success.”
I say that it is not OK for a woman to walk into a room that contains a majority of male occupants and with a few seemingly inconsequential examples ruin the impression these men have of the women they will be working with for the rest of their professional lives. Even so, no matter what, each and every one of us will only strive to work harder and shine brighter until the world realizes that it is illuminated equally by two kinds of lights: “sons” and “daughters.”

Meghna Malhotra is a freshman software engineering major at Drexel University. She can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Overcoming discrimination in IT appeared first on The Triangle.

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending “Love, Lust and Loathing: The Science Behind Our Strongest Emotions,” organized by the Philadelphia Science Festival. Of the six scientists (and one comedian) who presented that evening, the lecture that stayed with me most was by Coren Apicella. An assistant professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, Apicella spoke to us about her study of the relationship between men’s vocal cords and their perceived sexual attractiveness. Her hypothesis was fairly innocuous: Men with deeper voices are considered more attractive. Her methodology, however, was deeply troubling.

Apicella decided to test her hypothesis on the Hadza, a hunter-gatherer group living in Tanzania, located in East Africa. As she described the culture she had selected, she invoked an image of a simplistic, isolated group of people living as their (and our) ancestors did for the past 50,000 years. She noted that they are a “natural birthing population,” meaning they do not use birth control. To complete the fetishized image of primitivism, she showed a photo of herself next to several Hadza people, in their traditional garb.
When evolutionary biologists wish to study a particular trait in an animal species, they select a model group. This small, observable group of animals is taken to stand for most members of that species, and scientists can make generalizations about the species from their observations. The problem with Apicella’s research is that the Hadza are not a model group. Unlike animals, all humans are culturally distinct, and their behaviors are virtually impossible to generalize. When Apicella describes the Hadza simply as “hunter-gatherers,” she implies that their economic model describes them completely.

When she argues that they live unaffected by the outside world, she neglects the centuries of economic, social and legal changes that have beset Tanzania. Such changes did not only affect the people who now mimic Western culture, but the Hadza as well. When she terms the Hadza a “natural birthing population,” she ignores the complex rules governing spousal selection, marriage and reproduction at play in every society (including the ones without Plan B pills). The Hadza do not simply mate with whomever they feel like, they have rules and rituals to regulate their reproduction.

Apicella’s implicit characterization of the Hadza is based on a deficit model. Rather than speaking about what makes this Sub-Saharan African society unique, she is more interested in describing them as a precursor to our “modern” societies. The idea of primitive vs. civilized people was invented by social scientists in the late 19th century. At that time, luminaries like L.H. Morgan and Herbert Spencer described human culture as “evolving,” arguing that European society was highly evolved compared to the cultures of Africa and North America. This evolution, it followed, justified Europe’s colonial domination of other countries and the subjugation of people of color for manual labor purposes.

The idea that cultures “evolve” was rejected by anthropologists more than 100 years ago. It is racist, self-aggrandizing and lacks any substantial evidence. Who is to say that Hadza culture resembles the hunter-gathering cultures of our past? The Hadza do not even behave like other hunter-gatherer groups in the present. The deficit model speaks of groups like the Hadza as lacking “culture,” because they live closer to nature. It blinds us to the ways that Hadza culture has evolved over the centuries by focusing only on the aspects we see as “primitive.”

It may be hard to understand the Hadza as anything other than an exotic hunter-gatherer band because their culture is nearly invisible to us. This invisibility makes it all the more vital for researchers to represent the Hadza ethically and realistically. By using them to model “typical” early humans, researchers are negating their cultural uniqueness and deceiving the consumers of their research. If Apicella’s research is to uncover the deeper truths about human behavior, why did she choose a group that is so different from us? Why not multiple cultural groups? Or simply multiple Americans?

It is tempting for scientists to ignore the impact of culture upon human behavior, but such ignorance ultimately weakens their work. Further, pretending that some groups have more or less culture than others is not only inaccurate, it is deeply disrespectful to groups like the Hadza. Since the days of Emile Durkheim, anthropologists have been aware of the incredible benefits of consulting psychology when doing their work. It is unfortunate that even in 2014, psychologists still think it is appropriate to disregard the work of anthropologists and treat some humans as living models.

Richard Furstein is a senior anthropology major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Hunters, gatherers and you appeared first on The Triangle.

When taking on the daunting task of quantifying what makes something beautiful, symmetry is the crown jewel. Symmetry expresses an air of purpose and thoughtfulness. However, bold asymmetry can also be a striking artistic device. Marilyn Monroe and her iconic beauty mark, Picasso’s “Portrait of Dora Maar Seated,” and Beijing’s China Central Television building all possess an “off-balance” element that is so audacious and yet so pleasing that an onlooker cannot help but be drawn in.

As one might imagine, mesmerizing asymmetry is a difficult artistic goal to attain. The line between intentionally off balance and messy is a blurry one. Unlike a painting gone awry, an artist cannot so easily tuck away a building with blushed cheeks. So naturally, years of thought go into the design of a new structure. With all this in mind, I wonder what went wrong with West Philly’s newest residential tower, the evo, part 2 of the Cira Centre triad, which failed to achieve either of these design elements it seems to have been going for.

The three ultramodern concrete-and-glass towers began with the eponymous office building that recently hosted the world’s largest Tetris game. Plans as late as 2013 demonstrate a harmony between the three that nestle the Internal Revenue Service building and 30th Street Station tightly in their bosom. All have (or are to have) dramatic glass-clad triangular faces that flawlessly reflect the passing clouds. The towers lead the newest trend in Philadelphia development: to further gentrify University City and increase the neighborhood’s desirability. And as a bonus, the project will create construction and service jobs, and generate revenue for the city.

Evo itself is bursting at the seams with amenities. From a rooftop infinity pool to fully furnished apartments and an acre of elevated green space, the luxury student housing will be coveted. So what could be this building’s fatal flaw? It’s hideous. Until its construction, it was slated to be sleek, slim and positively glamorous. But when the promotions began and the images were revealed, something was different.

The edifice is still all glass, but the panes are of varying sizes and shades of blue. Every umpteen arbitrarily selected floors, there is an awkward V-shaped concavity that looks like an architectural wound. Worst of all is the base of the building. Evo does not stand heroically above the soil that gave it life, nor does it seamlessly blend into the pedestrian level. Rather, it stands clumsily with its skirt hiked up. The base begins with glass on one side and exposed concrete supports on the other.

Thematic consistency is crucial to the aesthetic integrity of a building, and it is a quality evo lacks. Nowhere else in the tower is the industrial skeleton exposed, and that inconsistency brings me to evo’s most bothersome quality of all: trendiness for the sake of trendiness. There is nothing wrong with being on the cutting edge of design, but to alter a wonderful plan to be more interesting to a fictional audience that demands the latest trends in their new luxury apartment is silly.

If it was decided late in the game that the building was too plain, more elegant changes easily could have been made that would have maintained evo’s planning-stage glory. For instance, had the apartment and common-space floor plans been tessellated in five-story blocks, the two-tone windows would cascade on beautiful diagonals in a repeating pattern, a significantly better design than the current haphazard arrangement.

Another small but impactful change would be simply to extend the glass facade to the ground and draw the eye to the entrance level with color rather than pollute the already eccentric shape with more structural design.

I am still excited to see the interior and do not doubt that living there will be the height of college luxury, so long as you don’t look at your own building, that is. Evo is in many ways a cautionary tale of what happens when a building is a bit too much of a try-hard.

Sage Magee is a sophomore architectural engineering major at Drexel University. She can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Evo lacks style, grace appeared first on The Triangle.

While I agree that technological advancements have changed lives, I detest the fact that present-day gadgets are taking over our lives instead of just enhancing them. I myself am studying to be a software engineer and am a huge advocate for the order and convenience these so-called “intelligent” devices bring to our everyday lives. But we as human beings need to be careful not to let our own creations be our doom.

Humans are as much a part of the physical world as every other inanimate object in nature and straying too far from this reality will inevitably take its toll on our health. Our lives are not meant to be spent staring at screens that give out harmful radiation or with our noses buried in phones that are getting smarter as I type these words. Because the upcoming generations do not understand this, they are getting dumber and less dependent on their own minds by the minute.

At a TedCrunch Disrupt Conference in San Francisco a few years ago, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt said, “Your car should drive itself. It’s amazing to me that we let humans drive cars. It’s a bug that cars were invented before computers.”

When such radical ideas are put forth by people revered in the technological world, it is not a far stretch to assume that millions of hopefuls will want to follow in their footsteps by coming up with their own astonishing creations. Now the problem with this kind of freethinking society is that very few people actually understand its future implications.

Take for example all the energy resources in the world: As humans evolved, they learned to harness natural resources and convert them into energy sources for all their artificial creations. The more humans created, the more energy they needed to keep those creations running. Now we know that at the time when this started our ancestors did not have such a profound, relevant example to cross-reference their current situation with. They had no idea of the consequences of uncontrolled excessive creation. Today, we know better. We have seen that when man’s wants surpass its needs, it results in a world crisis in terms of depleted natural resources, contaminated bodies of water and heavily polluted air. We should take some time to think about what will result if we continue with a similar approach in which we create (and eventually become dependent on) so much technology that we forget to partake in physical activity.

Entropy, a core component of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is a measure of disorder in an isolated system. In the long run, complex and ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly. Countless experiments conducted all over the world establish that the more answers we find, the more questions arise. According to these theories, this process of creation, then the discovery of more questions which will lead to further opportunities for creation, will never stop unless we make a conscious decision to curb our incessant need to want more.

Today, almost every conceivable idea concerning the advent of new technology has been implemented or is in the process of being created. To think that if our entire reality is transformed into artificially “intelligent” technology, how damaging will it be to our connection with the physical world?

Now is the time to change. We can’t undo what we have done or even stop creating new technology, but we can slow down, at least until everybody realizes that technology is a privilege and not a necessity and learns to use it that way. Today, I see people of my age and older who surround themselves with technology and forget to appreciate the beauty of physical human connection. They forget to take in the first rays of sun in the morning, or breathe in the mountain air, or marvel at the wondrous expanse of snow in the winter because they are so engrossed in their phones that they can’t even look up for long enough to notice the lamp post they’re about to walk into. There is indeed a fine line between order and chaos and we are standing on it and, with any luck, this will be as far as we get.

Meghna Malhotra is a freshman software engineering major at Drexel University. She can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Technology is treading a fine line appeared first on The Triangle.

Last week the Supreme Court upheld a ruling that struck down Michigan’s constitutional amendment banning the consideration of race in public university admission. In her 58-page dissent (longer than the other four judges’ opinions combined) Justice Sonia Sotomayor argues that the stance taken by many in this country, including her colleague Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., is too simplistic. She is just one of a number of political voices speaking out in recent months, opening up the discussion on race yet again.

At an event celebrating Black History Month — a cultural practice that presents its own problems — U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told Department of Justice employees that despite America’s self-image as an ethnic melting pot, “we have always been and we — I believe continue to be in too many ways essentially a nation of cowards” on racial issues. He goes on to say that Americans are afraid to talk about race for fear of embarrassment and “at worst the questioning of one’s character.” As we approach the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it’s important to take stock of how far we have come, but we can’t use that progress as an excuse to ignore how much farther we have to go.

Some people like to argue that we live in a post-racial society, that we live in a time when race has ceased to be an issue in America. The election of President Barack Obama in 2008 has supposedly ushered in this time, the logic being: if we can elect a (half-)black president, twice, race must not be an issue in this country. This flawed thinking would be hilarious if it wasn’t so dangerous; just because men in white sheets don’t burn crosses on your front lawn doesn’t mean that we woke up on November 5, 2008, and racism was a thing of the past.

Arizona passed a law that basically legalized racial profiling by requiring police officers to ask for suspected illegal immigrants’ identification; this is not the type of legislation that would be passed in a post-racial society. Immigrants (legal or otherwise) would not be treated with suspicion and anger for wanting a better life in a post-racial society, and being angry over loud “thug crap” would not be justification for shooting an unarmed teenager in a culture where something as innocuous as your favorite style of music is linked to your worth as a human; not in a post-racial society.

Even more threatening to this ideal society than our fear of being labeled racist is our tendency to unknowingly perpetuate racial stereotypes. It seems like a compliment when you tell your friend that they “sound so white” when they talk or that “you always forget” that they are black or when someone is jokingly called an “Oreo” (which are all statements that have been directed at me verbatim), but what is actually being said is: “you defy racial stereotypes, your behavior is outside my concept of what a black person is, says, can and should be.” There is a stigma to “acting white” because everyone, on all sides of the color barrier, has bought into the message that to be black is to be poor, uneducated, and unmotivated and to be anything else is to deserve another classification.

This type of thinking is not just an external problem. The black community has a similar problem with self-perception: It’s still common for black children to feel isolated from their own community because they don’t fit in with those stereotypes. For example, there is often an emphasis on and easy acceptance of athletic ability over academic achievement. More often than not the black elite who have the ability — and some would argue the responsibility — to make real change in this perception leave the community and never look back; in essence, we all buy into the stereotypes and we all reinforce them, often without realizing.

Holder’s comments set off a firestorm of criticism. As often happens in the modern world, the debate on the Internet has been far from productive, but Holder and Sotomayor have hit the nail on the head: There is a big, multi-ethnic, caffeine-fueled elephant in the room, and we can’t afford to keep on ignoring it.

I agree with Justice Sotomayor. We can’t wish away racial inequality just because we’re sick of the topic. It has been my observation that the people who most fervently defend the idea of a post-racial America are simply sick of being reminded of crimes they didn’t commit. Most of these people are good, honest Americans who just want to live their lives as good people. But many of the reasons we don’t live in a post-racial society stem from this very problem.

We want to move past the issue of race without doing the hard work of healing old wounds, but choosing to bury our heads in the sand and ignore all of the evidence of racism is a large reason why it still exists. It’s because we don’t talk about race that it’s funny to dress up in blackface with padded behinds and “ghetto” outfits for Halloween. Because we don’t talk about race we still fall back onto racial stereotypes when we talk about the drug wars and the welfare system, despite statistical evidence that shows these issues, like all forms of inequality, are much more complicated.

Because we don’t talk about race, we try to treat the symptom (affirmative action) instead of the problem (minorities are at a disadvantage long before the Common App), and as a result, minorities are still underrepresented in American universities. Because we don’t talk about race, a social media storm started when a black actress was cast as Rue in “The Hunger Games,” a character described in the book as brown-skinned with curly hair, and when Lupita Nyong’o was recognized as People Magazine’s “Most Beautiful Woman” this year. When an Indian-American beauty queen won Miss America, it was racism that had people calling her a terrorist, saying that she should go home, and insisting that there was no way she should qualify to win the pageant.

I understand the draw of a post-racial America. It must be exhausting to live in a world where a simple joke meant to entertain or an offhanded remark meant to compliment (Sen. Harry Reid admitted to saying that then-Sen. Obama could go far in the election because he has light skin and “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one” — a reference to the practice called code-switching) can cause people you call friends to suddenly question your character. However, it’s also exhausting to feel your heart race every time you see a cop car in the rearview mirror or to explain to your clearly well-intended friends why you have to wrap your hair every night at your sleepover for your 12th birthday. It would be freeing to live in a world where you no longer feel the need to tiptoe around people’s feelings or a world where controversial phrases like “affirmative action” are relics of a dark past. The problem is, Holder and Sotomayor are right: We as a nation have dropped the ball and let racial inequality take root in this country while we prune the branches and declare ourselves successful.

While I highly doubt that we could achieve a post-racial society in my lifetime, we are perfectly capable of making the first steps. We’re not going to magically get over our perceptions about ourselves and others overnight, but we can start having open and honest discussions with those around us. When we set aside preconceived notions and assumptions, we open the door to productive conversation, and that is the catalyst to real progress.

Brie Powell is a sophomore political science major at Drexel University. She can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post A post-racial America? appeared first on The Triangle.

When NBA Commissioner Adam Silver gave Donald Sterling the maximum punishment for his racist rant, Middle America breathed a sigh of relief. Justice has been served, the evil people have been eliminated, and racism has been vanquished. The reality is that Sterling is simply a high profile, wealthy symptom of an intrinsic problem with our individualistic society: entrenched racism.

When Americans heard Sterling try to convince his mistress not to publicize her dalliances with the darker men, we were rightly appalled that a man in this day and age could think such things. Wouldn’t it be great if we felt similarly about the everyday racism that permeates our culture? Some people argue that America is “post-racial,” meaning that race is no longer a factor for consideration in our society. Not surprisingly, the proponents of such a model are typically white (and often male).

Why do I say this is not surprising? Because even though a majority of Caucasian Americans are not screaming hate-filled statements, they are unaware of the realities facing people of color in this country, the economic conditions that preserve their second-class roles, legal conditions that silence their voices in government, and social conditions that brand them as violent, stupid, lazy and maladjusted before they can prove otherwise. While we have eliminated slavery, Jim Crow laws and even interracial marriage restrictions, we have not extinguished racism.

Racism is challenging the credibility of our first black president, with adequate proof of his citizenship, well into his second term. Racism is accepting Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born on foreign soil to a citizen of Cuba, but accusing Barack Obama of being a foreigner. Racism is telling the Indian-American Miss America to go back to her home country despite the fact that she holds a degree in brain behavior and cognitive science and was born in New York. The color of her skin is enough to summon kneejerk repulsion. Racism is the City of New York defending a stop and frisk policy where nine in 10 of the people stopped were people of color (even though they only account for half of the city’s population). That same stop and frisk policy has been shown to be effective only 12 percent of the time. But racism does not have to be so obvious.

Racism is the gap between the average wages of Caucasian and African-American families. Racism is the myth that government subsidies like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) are only helping people of color. Racism is denying home loans to people of color to prevent them from living in expensive neighborhoods (called red lining). Simultaneously, racism is white people moving into neighborhoods formerly dominated by people of color and making them too expensive for their original residents (called gentrification).

Why are we so quick to denounce the man who says blatantly racist statements but are so lethargic in dealing with the racism that happens every day? Quite honestly, who has the time? In a struggling economy, with troubling world events and with all the TV shows we’re committed to watching, who has the mental energy to deal with yet another problem? This attitude, combined with a media system that is more interested in celebrity lifestyles than national issues, creates the cultural lethargy that has stymied any significant social policies to address racism in the past 40 years.

In his recent Time op-ed, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar points out that Donald Sterling’s racism has been staring America in the face since at least 2006, when the Department of Justice sued him for his race-based housing discrimination. While it is fun and trendy to decry racism when someone is foolish enough to say what Sterling did, this social phenomenon is not a passing fad. As Wendell Phillips noted when speaking to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” It must be the job of the media, the governing powers and the American people to root out racism, not for the sake of people of color, but for the integrity of this country. Our ancestors fought for our freedom, not for the exercise of a tyrannical minority, but for the practice of a consenting majority. We must eliminate racism not just in rhetoric, but also in practice.

Richard Furstein is a senior anthropology major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post We should talk about race appeared first on The Triangle.

Have you ever felt alone in a crowded room, alienated from people doing exactly the same thing you are? Alienation doesn’t have to be formal, like getting the silent treatment. Sometimes, it can be as subtle as being the only one without a cellphone or an MP3 player.

Over the weekend, my parents and I went to see “One Day in Pompeii” at The Franklin Institute. The exhibit had over 150 artifacts recovered from the Italian city, ranging from furniture to medical equipment. Innovative mixed media like short films, personal audio tour devices and wall posters adorned the exhibit, thoroughly identifying every piece on display. As I stood in a room full of people listening into their earpieces, staring at video screens and silently reading the posters, I felt completely alienated. My usually talkative parents — who make every opportunity a teachable moment for my young brothers — were so distracted by their audio tours that they hardly bothered to keep pace with me.

In American culture, there are times and places where it is socially preferable to be alienated. When we go to theaters, we tend to think of viewing movies and stage shows as a personal experience. When we enter bookstores and libraries, we show other patrons our respect by speaking in low tones. In art galleries, too, Americans tend to abandon their normally brash behavior to maintain an atmosphere of contemplation. And while that behavior is all well and good in those venues, The Franklin Institute was not intended for silent contemplation.

This alienating atmosphere does not typically describe The Franklin Institute, which makes use of presenters and activity stations. Much like the Philadelphia Zoo and the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, The Franklin Institute normally employs human guides to engage visitors with hands-on activities and enlightening discussions. In contrast, this exhibit’s staff deployment seemed as alienating as the subject matter. Having visited the actual archaeological site at Pompei (the modern spelling of the settlement at Pompeii), I noticed some major differences in the American and Italian narratives on Pompeii. While the dates were the same, the meanings associated with Pompeii varied widely. The Franklin Institute depicted Pompeii as an exotic, almost idyllically oblivious town afflicted by a great tragedy. It emphasized Pompeii’s complete disappearance from history, like a real-life Atlantis. In a single day — the story goes — a vibrant Roman city was swallowed up by the forces of nature.

Absent from this narrative is any mention of Pompeii’s neighboring cities around the Bay of Naples, where horrified observers documented the eruption and its aftermath. Visitors to the exhibit who lack knowledge of Italy would have no idea that Pompeii is and was only about 16 miles from the older and larger city of Naples (then Neapolis), because Naples is never mentioned. The Franklin Institute’s narrative positions Pompeii as physically, temporally and culturally isolated. While this makes the tragedy easier to romanticize, it also prevents us from actually connecting it to our own lives. This, combined with the lack of live staff members, made the entire exhibit seem hard to connect with, and frankly unenjoyable.

Though the narrative on Pompeii presents its own issues, my real complaint with the exhibit was the atmosphere of silence that permeated the event. It is easy to say that people’s choice to be silent is not necessarily connected to the space they occupy, but The Franklin Institute’s aggressive use of multimedia almost certainly precipitated the alienating atmosphere in the exhibit. Rather than investing in fancier graphics, the Institute would be better served to employ actual presenters with artifacts, activities and discussions about Pompeiian culture. This method of presentation engages and educates visitors, and makes it more accessible to people across the age spectrum. Science and history are subjects best taught through discussion and practice, not passive reading or listening. In addition, it doesn’t hurt the job market for educators looking for work, like this writer.

Richard Furstein is a senior anthropology major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Exhibit lacks interactivity appeared first on The Triangle.

The concept of democracy has been on my mind a lot lately. It seems that we Americans are mighty proud of our unique brand of democracy, without actually understanding what it means. I say this because while we wave starred and striped flags, sing anthems to our greatness and pompously boast that we have God’s endorsement, we’re missing something. We’re watching democracy slip through our fingers, and the only people able to change it are too busy washing their hands of bribes.

I firmly believe that democracy, as any reasonably sound person would understand it, is under attack in this country. Our constitutional right to be represented in the halls of government is being taken from us and sold to the highest bidder. With the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling and their follow-up 2014 McCutcheon v. FEC decision, a new equivalency is being written into law. Rather than an agenda requiring a majority of people to support it, now it just needs a majority of dollars.

Recently, I’ve noticed a trend in articles I read about upcoming elections. While many will still cite popularity polls to compare candidates, writers always mention if the candidate has built up their “war chest.” This metaphoric chest is, of course, the amount of money they have to invest in the election. When we conflate fundraising dollars with likelihood of success, we start down a dark path of political influence. Regardless of politicians’ policy positions relative to their constituents, we are acknowledging that it is really their bank accounts that influence their electability.

While the Roberts Court’s assault on campaign finance law is a very visible assault on our democracy, it is hardly the only one. With the 2013 castration of the Voting Rights Act, state legislatures and county governments have been handed a blank check to restrict suffrage to social groups of which they approve. The elimination of early voting and evening voting across the U.S., as well as a slew of new identification protocols threaten to disenfranchise voters in much the way that Jim Crow era voting laws did. When the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania attempted to rationalize its Voter ID Law, it argued that such laws protect against voter fraud. It is a noble cause, and notably a nonexistent one in Pennsylvania.

In an age of diminishing returns on our civic investment into democracy, to what can we look as a new way? What is democracy, and how can we attain it? A few weeks ago, I wrote an op-ed about the Mural Arts Project in which I defended its role as a community builder. Later that same week, I saw a performance of “I’m a Stranger Here Myself” at Philadelphia’s Prince Music Theater. The stage show featured a collection of music from Germany’s Weimar Republic Era. What do the two have in common? They represent democratic expressions in art.

When I describe art as “democratic,” I’m not suggesting that it supports the American left-wing, or even the concept of government. Art is democratic when it reflects the beliefs of the people who make it. While all art reflects the ideas of its maker, mural projects and Weimar music go a bit further. They capture the feelings of the politically and socially marginalized and share them with the world. The Mural Arts Project employs young, local artists who may not otherwise be able to express themselves for an audience. Music of the Weimar Republic was frequently written by Jews and members of the LGBTQ community, two severely marginalized groups in Germany.

But why is it important to promote minority artists? Because when you allow marginalized artists to express themselves, they offer us a glimpse into something deeper, the effect of marginalization on their lives. The murals of Philadelphia do not reflect the opulent lives of the city’s wealthiest and whitest, and the music of the Weimar did not celebrate the virtues of Christian sexual purity. They opened the eyes of a silent and apathetic majority to the realities of their multicultural societies.

So what can we take away from so-called “democratic art movements”? What do they actually teach us about democracy? Perhaps that there are better ways to judge a person (whether an artist or a politician) than by their bank account? That the expression of one’s ideas tells us more about their leadership style than their net financial worth? Or that maybe, the people best qualified to reform our society are not the ones who benefit the most from it.

Richard Furstein is a senior anthropology major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Minorities, democracy and art appeared first on The Triangle.