So, recently, I was watching an episode of The Triangle Live with Sandra Petri (a great Internet YouTube television program, by the way; I recommend it highly) about the origins of the Drexel Shaft. Most of us on campus today don’t know it beyond an abstract concept of “I was shafted by Drexel.” You’ve encountered it when they wouldn’t register you for a class, or they cashed your study abroad check on a day that coincided with what you called a “reasonably-sized” liquor store run and you went broke. However, the Shaft was more than just that.

For the longest time, it referred to the chimney of the Pennsylvania Railroad power station in the Powelton Railyards adjacent to campus, which Amtrak demolished in 2009, on the grounds that it was A. architecturally interesting, B. structurally sound, and C. had genuine possibilities to be reused as a commercial property. Naturally, it had to go.

Much more interesting in this episode, though, is the theory proposed by Drexel archivist Rob Sieczkiewicz, which is that the “Drexel Shaft” referred to a fountain in the main quad called the “Flame of Knowledge.” It’s not there anymore because it was moved in front of North Hall sometime after 1968. And this new piece of information got my gears turning about the current state of Drexel’s main quad.
The Flame of Knowledge, as best I can make out, was eventually replaced by one of those great fountains that you can walk through and get soaked. This fountain still exists, under the pavers in front of Gerri C. LeBow Hall, but its pump room is removed and no provisions have yet been made for a new one. After carefully considering student body input, which seemed to be universally positive and supportive of the return of the fountain, Drexel decided to take the low-effort way out and pave over it.

This brings me to our real subject. Ask anyone in their junior or pre-junior years about the quad and they’ll likely just give you a blank stare. “We have a quad?” And their query is perfectly valid. When the construction fencing came down and Gerri Hall was opened, we still didn’t have a quad.

What we got was a token plaza, like you’d see at a strip mall or a suburban office park. It’s a vast plane of grey pavers, uninterrupted by greenery, unpunctuated by monuments or even outdoor furniture, and unhospitable to all. The quad is not a place to “be.” It is, rather, a place to pass through on your way to somewhere else. It pays lip service to being a quad, but fundamentally, it’s just a glorified parking lot.

There are a few easy ways to fix this of course. For one thing, take out about half the paving and replace it with a nice lawn. For another, throw in some permanent lawn furniture. Maybe even a permanent stage for impromptu concerts or angry student rants or whatever. These aren’t difficult to implement, and in the case of the greenery, would actually solve a lot of drainage issues. Of course, we just built this new quad, and I doubt Drexel is about to tear it up and start again, although that’s probably what they’ll end up doing in the end.

So our other solution to the quad problem is programming, and I don’t mean the computer kind. Events are going to have to happen on the quad for people to make use of it.

Very close to Drexel is the Porch at 30th Street Station. It has nothing going for it: It’s narrow; it’s not close to any amenities aside from 30th Street Station; and it’s crammed in between a high-speed arterial road, a highway, and a faceless government office building. Additionally, it was finished on a shoestring budget and never got past Phase 1 of its construction, it has no greenery to speak of, and, beyond all that, it has a stupid name. And yet, it’s a genuinely nice place to be because of the programming! Sometimes the Porch is a food truck food court. Other times it hosts a farmers’ market. Once or twice a month it’s even a beer garden! Programming a space can make all the difference. All over the city, we see great programmed spaces, like the free lunchtime concerts at LOVE Park, or the food truck festivals on South Street, or the much larger free concerts at the Piazza at Schmidts. Programming a space can totally change people’s perceptions of it.

I have not seen how students will react to the quad this summer, and for all I know, they’ll drag lawn chairs and umbrellas out there and start talking and laughing and tanning just like they do at Drexel Park and on the North Lawn. I find it unlikely, though, since they don’t do the same in similar spaces, like, say, F Lot.

To put it in the simplest terms, the quad needs a thing. Right now there’s nothing there, and no reason to be there. It doesn’t even have greenery. If Drexel wants a usable space, and not just one that provides a beautiful unobstructed view of Disque Hall (a highly underrated building, but that’s another story), they’re going to have to either get out of this mindset that they have to pave everything, or they’re going to have to do a lot of programming for that space. Ideally, they’d combine both. Give students a reason to use the quad, and they’ll use it and love it. Keep it the way it is, and they’ll collaborate and talk and laugh, not in the quad, but in Starbucks in Gerri Hall, and get fat and pale and depressed.

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

The post New quad seriously flawed appeared first on The Triangle.

Recently in her Philadelphia Inquirer column, Inga Saffron expressed her dismay around the Philadelphia Mural Arts Program’s latest target: the piers of the Girard Avenue Bridge in Fairmount Park. As the Inquirer’s designated architecture critic and a graduate of the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, I couldn’t begin to question Saffron’s qualifications as an expert on architecture and urban design. Her tastes, however, are clearly the product of her own disengagement with the lower classes of this great city.

Is it rude of me to single out the urban poor? After all, Saffron doesn’t mince her words when describing the people and the neighborhoods for which the Murals Arts Program is intended. It operates “mostly in the bleaker corners of the city,” “struggling neighborhoods” and “blighted” areas. I never realized that the mural of former Mayor Frank Rizzo at 9th and Montrose streets made my neighborhood “blighted.” I just assumed it was a celebration of one of South Philly’s more distinguished residents.

Inga Saffron has never been a fan of the Mural Arts Program, and this column is not a shocking revelation of the critic’s views. What is shocking, though, is her casual association of murals with areas of ill-repute. Though she complains of the artistic caliber and intended image, the basis of her argument rests on her dichotomy of the city. While she doesn’t mind murals in neighborhoods “where a little paint isn’t the worst thing that could happen,” the Bridge piers are in her treasured Fairmount Park. She invokes images of a pure “Schuylkill greenway” under assault from urban incursion (perhaps she hasn’t noticed the four-lane roadway?), but her real message is clear: Fairmount Park is an area for affluent people, and the murals are a symbol of urban blight.

Let’s zoom out for a moment and try to understand how the iconic images that decorate our city are associated with poverty. The current Mural Arts Program was created as a part of the Philadelphia Anti-Graffiti Network, to redirect young people from defacing Philadelphia into celebrating its rich local histories. Since then, the program has evolved tremendously, working with the Philadelphia Art Commission, the Department of Parks and Recreation and numerous private organizations to encourage both art and fledgling artists. The Mural Arts Program removes graffiti, plants trees and works with diverse groups from school children to prison inmates, assisting with job training and placement. It’s quite a Marxist pipedream of an organization, and while I’m sure it does not accomplish all of its lofty goals, it serves a critical community function.

Many critics, like Saffron, argue that cosmetic programs like Mural Arts are ignoring real socioeconomic issues, and are not what the people really want. Saffron pursued this point specifically, calling into question the democratic nature of the mural’s selection and approval process. While she acknowledged that the privately-funded mural did have to be approved by the relevant city authorities, she sounded unimpressed with the level of bureaucracy needed to approve new murals. Perhaps she would be happier if all Philadelphians had to publically vote on all art. More likely though, she would prefer a ban on any future Mural Arts projects.

In spite of Saffron’s objections, the murals serve an economic improvement role as well. In 2009, Local Initiatives Support Corporation and the City of Philadelphia commissioned a study to investigate city investments in commercial corridors. The study found that mural projects were among the top five investments a city could make to improve urban space. Practically speaking, painting murals in commercial areas (e.g., Germantown Avenue, Girard Avenue, Baltimore Avenue, etc.) resulted in increased property values and retail sales. While this fact should stand for itself, the Mural Arts Program insists that it is not an economic improvement initiative. It is a community-building project, with an economically beneficial side effect.

Saffron’s attack on the democratic nature of Mural Arts and the “narcissistic” subject matter of the murals reveals her own disconnect with the people who benefit from the program. While Saffron studied design in one of the U.S.’s premier institutions, many of Philadelphia’s residents can’t afford to feed their children fresh produce, let alone take them to the Philadelphia Museum of Art, the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, the Barnes Foundation or the Philadelphia History Museum at the Atwater Kent. Attempts to make these museums more accessible (like the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s Pay-What-You-Wish Wednesday Nights) are rare, and these bastions of high culture remain restricted to people like Saffron.

For many children and young adults growing up in Philadelphia, positive reflections of their lives and homes are few and far between. Engaging them in the Mural Arts Program offers a chance to contribute to their community in a lasting and powerful way. It also showcases some of the city’s talented urban artists, who are unable to pursue classical artistic training. For the visitors of Philadelphia, these murals reflect a rich and transparent history of our city, from the venerable South Philly mayor to the rowers on the Schuylkill. Calling for “boundaries” on which neighborhoods can have murals is an insult to the dedication of the program and the artists who contribute to it.

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

The post A vindication of Philly Mural Arts appeared first on The Triangle.

When renting an apartment or house in West Philadelphia, there are some questions you ought to consider. There’s the classic “How close is it to campus?” and “What are the local amenities like?” and “Do I have to pay utilities?” Since we have an urban campus, you also have to ask “Is the neighborhood safe? What’s it like after 11 p.m.?”

Increasingly, though, you should be asking another question: “Will it fall over before my lease is up?”

A week ago, an enormous crack appeared in the wall of my living room. It stretches from the floor to the ceiling on a corner that used to house a chimney, but now houses a poorly-implemented forced-air duct. The wall is, of course, load-bearing.

It’s not that surprising, since my apartment building (built around1860) is older than the modern state of Italy (unified in 1861). When it was built, Abraham Lincoln had yet to take office, “On the Origin of the Species” was hot off the presses, and there were people still alive who had been subjects of the Holy Roman Emperor. It was converted into apartments sometime in the early 20th century, and the apartments were most recently renovated sometime in the late ‘50s or early ‘60s. Many students, I’m sure, live in similar buildings.
Even some of our larger apartment buildings are ancient. University Crossings was built in 1927 as the headquarters of the Pennsylvania Railroad and is on the National Register of Historic Places. Chestnut Hall on 39th Street was built as the Pennsylvania Hotel in 1922, and The Axis is even older. As large-ticket items, they are well maintained and frequently inspected, and, in the case of The Axis, have even had all traces of their age obliterated. When it comes to row houses, though, decades of neglect can go by before anyone notices or cares.

There are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of row houses in University City and surrounding areas. Not all of them are old or decrepit. Some are owned by conscientious landlords who renovate their properties frequently. Many, however, are not. Especially in the student slums north of Spring Garden Street, but really all over West Philadelphia, we see evidence of neglect. Crooked porch roofs, long cracks in load-bearing brick walls, the occasional sagging deck (probably built without permits); they’re all there. Frequently, you’ll see a lone row house standing between vacant lots, a thing that it was never designed to do. Most of these houses are renting for upwards of $3,000 a month, to boot!

These issues, in and of themselves, aren’t terrible. What is terrible is when one of them just decides to up and fall over one day. It’s happened before, often as a result of poor excavation practices in adjacent properties, but sometimes just out of the blue.
Building collapses are frequent enough now that they hardly make the news. A house was damaged by falling construction on Hamilton Street recently, and there was hardly any news coverage. In Strawberry Mansion, a house collapsed a few weeks ago, and made the local news for a day or two. Further collapses have happened in Ogontz and the rest of North Philadelphia within the past two months. Those houses were considerably newer than a lot of West Philadelphia’s housing stock, and one day their residents came home and found a pile of rubble where their house once was.

Licenses and Inspections is supposed to take care of figuring out which buildings are fit for habitation and which ones are masonry death traps, but there’s simply too many properties out there for them to inspect, and many that require more urgent intervention in other areas of the city. Meanwhile, Drexel has been buying up properties left and right through its real estate arm, New Age Realty, sprucing them up a bit, and renting them to students for exorbitant rates. Campus Apartments operates similarly. These are great to live in, if you can afford it.

For the rest of us, there’s the small-time landlords who may or may not have inspected their property in this century. The house could be a deathtrap, but hey, rent is cheap!

The fact is, West Philadelphia is getting old, and it’s starting to show. Nineteenth century row houses don’t have the same modern amenities as new construction. (They will, however, likely outlast modern stick-framed engineered-wood houses with false brick facing which will all fall over in exactly 50 years because that is when life-cycle analysis says that it’s the most economical for them to do so.)

I would not, however, suggest a wholesale teardown and reconstruction of West Philadelphia. Row houses in Powelton Village, in Spruce Hill, yes, even in deepest darkest Mantua, are part of the city’s character. Low-rent row houses are what make Philadelphia unique, because where else can a bunch of college kids with very little means get a whole house to themselves? People who want modern living can go live in Chestnut Square and pay for it. I’d rather have house shows.

L&I has been unable to solve the crisis. Drexel cannot either, unless it buys all of Powelton Village and Mantua. However, there are some simple things you can do to avoid living in a house that’s going to fall over. Ask your landlord about how old it is, and don’t settle for weasel words like “early 20th century.” Look at the walls for cracks, inside and out, and especially in the basement. And make sure you know your rights as a renter. Solving the widespread maintenance crisis is beyond anyone right now, but at least you can protect yourself if you remain informed.

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

The post West Philadelphia is crumbling appeared first on The Triangle.

I’m the daughter of blue-collar parents who worked hard to give my three younger siblings and me the best chance in life to succeed. My dad left high school to start work as an electrician and now runs a small business with pride, despite never having gone to college. My mom got her undergraduate degree in psychology from a small, all-girls college. She was a stay-at-home mom, but she now goes to community college and hopes to pursue graduate school.

Giving back was a value they taught me from a young age, even though we never had a lot of money to spare. At Christmas time, we bought a few presents for an Angel Tree kid; in the spring, we donated the clothes that could no longer be handed down; in the summertime all proceeds from my lemonade stands went to the local animal shelter.

As I grew up it became clear that college was in my future. I worked hard and applied to schools regardless of the tuition cost. When I was accepted into Drexel, I was delighted to have received a partial scholarship. I would still have to take out significant student loans, but I believe education is an investment.

My first two years at Drexel have been the best years of my life so far. Drexel has given me opportunities to grow as a young professional, make friends from all over the world, and have amazing learning experiences in class and on co-op. I have been able to connect with many of the people who work at the University, especially in the Office of Institutional Advancement. I felt honored to be asked to participate in the Student Philanthropy Task Force. In our first meeting, the conversation began with myths surrounding philanthropy.

What do you think of when you think of giving back to your university? Do you imagine your donation lining the pockets of some fat-cat executive who squanders it — as well as your tuition money — on tropical vacations, fast cars and big houses? Or, do you imagine your donation being used to help fund your student group that wants to host a speaker, a scholarship for a classmate in need or helping the library purchase that new book you wanted to read?

Drexel is a nonprofit institution where tuition covers only 78 percent of operating expenses. The remaining funds come from a large group of individuals who are passionate about higher education and value what the Drexel experience provides for its students. These aren’t just the extremely wealthy big names you see engraved in granite on buildings across campus. These are your professors, alumni of all generations and members of the community. They span generations, socio-economic backgrounds and professions. One of those donors could also be you.

We wanted to create a campaign that would change the conversation about philanthropy on campus and what it means to give back. There must be something at Drexel that you love and care about. For me, it is the student organizations I’m a part of. I participate in the triathlon team, International Student Union and Drexel Women in Business. My triathlon team wants to send 20 members to nationals in Arizona. ISU is hosting the International Ball, and even though it is costly to plan, we are committed to keeping it free to attend so everyone can celebrate with us. DWIB wants to run more professional development events on campus, but we need more funding in order to continue.

My Legacy was the name of the campaign we came up with. We wanted to teach students that philanthropy is about passion — a passion for giving back to what matters to you. Giving a gift to Drexel, no matter how small, makes a difference. The task force hopes to create a stronger culture of giving. I’m here because someone who didn’t know me decided to make my education more affordable. I want that legacy to continue. While my co-op salary is not lucrative enough to fund a scholarship, I can chip in with friends to send my team to nationals, throw a ball and plan an event that helps a freshman rock her first job interview. I am proud to be a part of the My Legacy campaign, and I can’t wait to see what we can accomplish.

Elizabeth Cahill is a sophomore buisness major at Drexel University. She can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Why philanthropy should matter to everyone appeared first on The Triangle.

Saturday concluded the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Md. Like every CPAC, the event featured fiery speeches, big name politicians and men looking for gay sex. If Craigslist for the National Harbor area is any indication, more than a handful of self-identified CPAC attendees were looking to meet some like-minded men after the speeches ended. This certainly isn’t the first year the CPAC has brought with it a contingent of frisky gentlemen, and under other circumstances, it really wouldn’t matter. What two men do in their hotel room is really none of our business, even if they advertise it on Craigslist. But these aren’t other circumstances; this is the foremost meeting of conservative activists in the U.S., and it has a big gay problem.

While gay and bisexual men attending CPAC casually fraternize, CPAC’s organizer — the American Conservative Union — has less than stellar opinions of homosexuals, even if they are Republicans. There was no better proof of this than the consistent rejection of both prominent lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Republican organizations (GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans) from CPAC. While members of GOProud were invited to attend this year, the organization’s cofounders, Chris Barron and Jimmy LaSalvia, both decried the ACU’s invite as a half-hearted attempt to appease the organization. GOProud is still not allowed to have an information table during the conference and has been forbidden from cosponsoring it. While both the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud attended CPAC in 2011, socially conservative groups like the American Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council have since voiced objections to the presence of gay people. Has anyone shown them Craigslist?

Whether the ACU likes it or not, gay people are real. They are human beings, and they have the free will to vote Republican. Unfortunately, even the most fiscally conservative gay person would have reservations, when they see the premier conservative conference ignoring their advocacy groups’ offers to participate. Not only is CPAC’s lack of gay visibility a poor reflection of the attendants, it is a poor reflection of regional party opinions. Since (and even leading up to) the Supreme Court’s landmark 2013 rulings in Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor, Republicans have been changing their tune about same-sex marriage. Close to 80 retired Republican politicians filed a brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry, stating their opposition to California’s voter approved same-sex marriage ban, Proposition 8. More recently, Gov. Brian Sandoval, R-Nev., declined to defend his state’s voter-approved 2002 marriage ban in a court challenge. Perhaps the most surprising example of Republican support for same-sex marriage came recently from a group of 20 Midwestern conservatives, in their brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver. In the brief, they argue that Utah’s and Oklahoma’s bans on same-sex marriage destabilize LGBT families, and run contrary to government interests in encouraging and preserving families.
Among Republicans, such views represent a fairly extreme step to the political left. However, same-sex marriage is not a primary plank of either GOProud or the Log Cabin Republicans. While both groups advocate strongly for a more limited government that does not ban same-sex marriages, their agendas focus mainly on tax reform and free market capitalism. As openly gay people, they expect to be treated fairly, but they aren’t ready to violently demand nationwide same-sex marriage.

For CPAC, the decision to include gay Republicans in its conference comes down to a question of principles. What is modern, American conservatism? Is it an unwavering devotion to God, an unquestioned opposition to sinners, and a large defense budget? Or is it a commitment to making people as free from government as possible? With the slew of recent voter ID laws, women’s reproductive health restrictions and vociferous opposition to same-sex marriage, there is nothing “limited” about the Republican governing model. And yet, many Republicans accept these to be the foundations of their party.

If this is to be the essence of American conservatism, statistics tell us that the party is dying. While Ann Coulter brays about Democrats supporting immigration reform to recruit new voters, her own party withers under the pressure of its “ideals”: ideals of elitism, exclusion and self-aggrandizement. The survival of American conservatism is predicated upon groups like the ACU taking a major reality check, and letting the gays come to CPAC.

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

The post The GOP has a big gay problem appeared first on The Triangle.

Fitness blogger and mother of three Maria Kang stirred up a bit of controversy in October when she posted a picture on Facebook of herself in a bra and underwear flanked by her three sons, posing the question: “What’s your excuse?” As you might expect, the backlash was loud and instantaneous. She was accused of bullying and fat-shaming; women were outraged at her hubris. “Who does she think she is?” and “We can’t all afford personal trainers!” were among the criticisms of her post.

Well, she’s back, this time letting the world know that she doesn’t have a personal chef, is not a trainer or an athlete, she works eight-hour days and gets little sleep, she has stretch marks — perhaps an attempt to combat the idea that she sees herself as a perfect Madonna figure (the Holy Mother, not the pop star) — and that we, the slovenly overweight public, are still making excuses for the state of our bodies. This time around there is a new aspect to the conversation, with Kang claiming that her campaign is not about “bashing those who are proud and overweight” but is instead about “empowering those who are proud and healthy to come out and be the real role models in our society.”

As a part of the demographic Kang was targeting — the less-than-ripped American women with a mile-long list of reasons not to go to the gym — I hear a thin, conventionally beautiful woman invalidating every self-acceptance campaign of the last 10 or so years. I didn’t just see her scoffing at the efforts of women like Mindy Kaling — for whom, when you type “Mindy Ka-” in Google “Mindy Kaling weight” is the second suggestion after her full name — and Jennifer Lawrence, who has frequently told stories of her awkward journey to self-acceptance, to help give girls idols to look up to. I also heard Kang laughing in the face of campaigns that try to teach girls that there is more than one way to be beautiful. I can’t help but wonder what she has to say about campaigns that tell girls that beautiful includes thick girls, skinny girls, buxom or flat-chested girls, dark-skinned girls with frizzy hair, too; are they beautiful? I was offended. Who is this woman to judge my priorities? Just because I consider my intellectual pursuits more important than fitting a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all concept of beauty, am I automatically wrong?

I nearly flew into a rage, then I read the articles again: I had started filling in the blanks with my own experiences and biases. Whatever I may have read in her tone, Kang repeatedly emphasizes how hard she has worked to be healthy, not beautiful; that was my hang-up. Still, I angrily dismissed this woman as shallow, self-centered and judgmental. Post-baby selfies have become popular in the days of Instagram and I instantly grouped her with women like Kim Kardashian, women who seemingly do nothing to help lift their fellow women to a level of self-actualization, but instead use their platform to stroke their egos and inadvertently (in the absolute best cases) deliver concentrated blows to the self-worth of women and girls everywhere.

Who does this woman think she is? After all, just because I know better than to snack on cookies and popcorn, she clearly wasn’t thinking about the millions of American women who are faced with the choice between warm clothes to last their children a season or fresh produce that might last a week. I have been fortunate enough to exist in an environment where I have access to a variety of foods, a good gym, and an ever-expanding source of information and ideas to keep me active, but what about the women who live in “food deserts” with access only to whatever happens to be in walking or bussing distance? Shame on her for trying to shame millions of women without understanding the context of their lives.

I thought about it again. We live in an incredibly prosperous time in one of the wealthiest nations in the world, yet we are bombarded with messages about the “obesity epidemic.” It should be impossible for a 300-lb. child to be malnourished, and yet this paradox not only exists but is widespread in our society. The term “obesity epidemic” makes obesity sound like some kind of rampant plague, affecting people at random, but that’s not what’s happening. Maybe this is the point that Kang is trying to make: we need to stop being passive participants in our health and recognize that poor health is not something that happens to us. We need to take responsibility for our health and recognize that we are actually experiencing a crisis of bad choices and ignorance. Maybe her good and timely message got caught up in a poorly executed delivery that thinly veiled her vanity.

A report Feb. 26 in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that obesity among children aged two to five dropped to 8.4 percent, from 14 percent a decade ago. The data suggests that first lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign is beginning to have the desired impact. The first lady asserts that this suggests that small changes in diets and activity levels can have a huge impact, especially early on in life. So I have to admit, all of my “reasons” are nothing more than the excuses of a slightly-out-of-shape sugar addict who never follows through on her new plan to go to the gym four days a week.

Kang’s message definitely rubbed some people the wrong way and not without reason. To be told by a thin, half-naked woman with washboard abs that you’re not trying hard enough is motivating when it comes from the trainer who is actively trying to help you do better, but coming from a smiling picture of a stranger? That’s just insulting. There are groups popping up all over the world using her tagline of “No Excuses!” so it’s not like she isn’t doing what she claims she set out to do, but does it count as motivation when a lot of people are insulted or does that just make it a hard truth? The hard truth is that I can find a million reasons to eat another chip or to skip my third day at the gym, but all the data speaks volumes: when we are ready to make the necessary changes, big or small, we are capable of making huge changes. The data says Americans are making great strides to better health, but we still have a long way to go, so no more excuses.

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

The post Fitness, obesity, and body image appeared first on The Triangle.

Recently on his show, Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly pondered the downsides of electing a female president. While he maintained a comically light atmosphere with his two female guests (a Democrat and a Republican), the underlying message of the broadcast had a darker tone. O’Reilly opened with a reminder of a previous episode, where U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., felt that her presidential campaign faltered because some Americans aren’t ready for a female president.

While some Americans (including me) may not be ready for a President Michele Bachmann, the idea that Americans (and specifically Republicans) couldn’t respect a female commander-in-chief is hard for me to understand. After all, Arizona is doing just fine with their Republican female governor, Jan Brewer. In fact, Brewer is the third consecutive female governor of Arizona. She’s not the female governor of Arizona; she’s the 4th governor of Arizona who happens to be a woman. While her recent veto of an anti-gay bill may cause a temporary blowback, Brewer has established herself as a hardline conservative in the past and continues to enjoy wide support in a fiercely Republican state.

The same can be said of Nikki Haley, incumbent governor of the equally conservative South Carolina. As the youngest sitting governor in the U.S. (she’s 42), Haley has no shortage of support for her conservative policies (such as illegally detaining Occupy protesters and limiting women’s reproductive rights). While it’s true that 20 of the 35 women ever elected as governors of a U.S. state have been Democrats, the party that claims to support women’s empowerment can’t lay any special claim to strong female leaders. After all, the only female governors of New Jersey, Massachusetts and Hawaii (all considered fairly liberal states) have been Republicans. Meanwhile, New York and California have never had a woman hold the high office.

With a substantial history of strong women as governors, senators and secretaries of state, it is all the more dismaying that women like Bachmann discourage female presidential candidates and talk show hosts like Bill O’Reilly joke about their downsides. While it’s clear that O’Reilly’s scornful humor is directed at Hillary Clinton in her likely bid for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, his statements far exceeded U.S. politics. He noted that there haven’t been many strong female leaders and went on to ponder if having a female president might make the U.S. look weak in the eyes of world leaders like Vladimir Putin or “the mullahs of Iran.”

I wonder if O’Reilly is familiar with Yulia Tymoshenko? Or Benazir Bhutto? Or Park Geun-hye? Tymoshenko was the prime minister of Ukraine before she was arrested and imprisoned in a trial widely decried by international observers as being politically motivated. Tymoshenko directly opposed joining Putin’s Customs Union (the very same political issue that currently divides Ukrainians). To be fair, women also hold some of Russia’s high offices, from Empress Catharine the Great to former governor and Federation Council Chairwoman Valentina Matviyenko. Benazir Bhutto was the first prime minister of Pakistan, back in 1988. I don’t know about my readers, but being the first woman leader of Pakistan seems pretty impressive to me.

My personal favorite, though would have to be President Park Geun-hye. Westerners may not immediately recognize that this name describes a woman and probably don’t know that she currently leads the Republic of Korea (otherwise known as South Korea). While we alternately laugh and cower at the nuclear threats of Kim Jong-un, Park commands the first line of defense against a potential nuclear arsenal. But why stop at Park? What about Indira Gandhi, or Golda Meir, or Margaret Thatcher, or Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Dilma Rousseff or Eva Peron? What about King Njinga, the Angolan queen so powerful that she demanded to be called “king”? Or Pharaoh Hatshepsut, who reigned for 50 years? What about Lili’uokalani, the last Queen of Hawaii, who stood before the U.S. government and demanded her people’s freedom? Please, tell me, O’Reilly, if these women were weak, what constitutes strength?

Was Bill O’Reilly joking about the downsides of a female president? Probably. Was Michele Bachmann? Doubtful. O’Reilly was right that there haven’t been many female leaders, but he obviously hasn’t looked into it much when he complains that they weren’t strong. And that’s really at the root of the problem, isn’t it? While he jokes about the idea of women being less qualified, his casual statements reveal that (in spite of such figures as Margaret Thatcher or Park Geun-hye) he still really believes that women just aren’t cut out for the Oval Office. It’s a shame, because his party has had a pretty good track record with fielding female candidates, if windbags like him would get out of the way.

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

The post Women and American politics appeared first on The Triangle.

Recently, the Kansas Legislature failed to pass a law that, in sponsors’ eyes, would have guaranteed private citizens freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. While the Kansas House of Representatives easily passed House Bill 2453, the Senate did not. The law’s goal was simple: to protect God-fearing Kansans from the wrath of the homosexual agenda.

While Kansas antidiscrimination laws do not explicitly mention “homosexual rights,” the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community still feels entitled to sue private businesses when they decide to stand up to the homosexual agenda. Florists, wedding cake makers and even daycare centers can be the victims of a lawsuit, just because the owner or operator does not support state-sanctioned gay marriages on religious grounds. Kansas is not the first state to attempt to protect religious freedoms in this way; the state of Washington recently considered a similar bill, which was quashed by gay activists. Although Washington has redefined marriage, Kansas still firmly supports its traditional definition. This makes it all the more baffling that they would punt on such a crucial bill for Kansans’ protection.

While HB 2453’s detractors claimed that the law would violate the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment is incredibly clear on this issue: People are free to practice their religion as they see fit. Not as other people see fit and not as the state sees fit. Therefore, it is totally logical that a business owner with a firm belief in the Bible would not want homosexuals in his establishment. After all, did the Puritans not come to America to escape the religious persecution they experienced in England? The Puritans founded Massachusetts Bay Colony so that they could kill Native American children, ban atheism and subjugate women, without the United Kingdom telling them otherwise.

Similarly, Kansans deserve some real protections for what they believe in. If a Christian business owner does not want to let the people who crucified the Lord and Savior into his establishment, why should he? If a sports bar owner is tired of insubordinate women coming into the bar without their husbands, shouldn’t he be able to ban them? And if a Mormon restaurant owner is tired of people disrespecting his religion by drinking coffee, can’t he refuse service to people who are known coffee-drinkers?

You see, once the state decides that the freedoms of one group (here, Christians) can only be protected by marginalizing the rights of another, it opens the door to all manner of unusual laws (and lawsuits). Why does the state have the right to tell private businesses how they must operate? Because when those businesses serve an important purpose (supermarket, gas station, medical clinic) in a small community, allowing them to discriminate against customers potentially means depriving people something that they cannot obtain elsewhere.

Further, encouraging businesses to justify their discrimination on the basis of religion is a vague and loophole-prone tactic. Who decides a business’ religious policy? If a business owner wants to attract gay and lesbian clients, but an employee of that business has a religious objection, can the employer fire them for not doing their job? Of course not, because Kansas employment laws protect citizens from being fired on the basis of their religion. But if business owners have the right to choose if they will serve same-sex couples, how can they choose to, without violating the religious beliefs of their own employees? Who decides what constitutes a religious belief? Which religions are eligible for consideration?

The law, as written, would suggest “all of the above.” Does that mean that Christians can ban non-Christians from entering their businesses? What if those businesses sell the things that non-Christians use to practice their religions (like supermarkets)? Does religious freedom trump women’s rights, as well? Laws such as HB 2453 fail to distinguish people’s right to believe in a religion, from their right to practice it with impunity. Multiple Supreme Court rulings have reaffirmed that one person’s religious freedoms end where another person’s freedoms begin. No one’s rights (religious, gender-based, or marital status-based) hold priority in a court of law, because all people are equal in the eyes of the law. That is just as much a part of the Constitution (through the 14th Amendment) as the separation of church and state.

Kansas senators realized that such a blatant attempt to marginalize homosexuals would be their own undoing, and so they stopped it. However, the Arizona Legislature has approved a similar bill, which is currently sitting on Republican Gov. Jan Brewer’s desk. She has decided to veto the bill, but in today’s political climate, these bills can pop up anywhere. Time will tell whether a bill like this can pass, and the fallout from it will be disastrous, to say the least.

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

The post Freedom of religion or freedom of discrimination? appeared first on The Triangle.

Exotic animal possession is an increasing controversy in the United States. The phrase “exotic animals” includes all big cat species, bears, wolves, non-human primates, alligators, snakes and many more. It is a general rule in the country that any animal native to the area cannot be owned as a pet; however, some states do not have regulations beyond that. Nine states have no license or permit laws for ownership of exotic animals, though they may regulate some aspect thereof. The website for Born Free USA summarizes the laws and regulations of each state. Nevada is a good example of where you cannot own mountain lions or bobcats because they are native, but all other big cats (and many other animal orders) are acceptable to own as pets, even without certain permits. A majority of other states do require at least certain permits to own exotic animals.

In Pennsylvania, permits are required to possess bears, coyotes, lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars, cheetahs, cougars and wolves, including any hybrid variations of these species. These species are specifically stated in the law, but it is also indicated that other exotic animals are subject to the regulations as well. This is strategic for the sake of the law but leaves a lot of gray area for people considering unusual pets.

“The Elephant in the Living Room,” directed by Michael Webber, is a documentary focusing on the work of one Ohio police officer-firefighter-EMT that battles exotic animal pet situations more than anyone would expect. The deputy, Tim Harrison, makes a trip to a reptile show in Hamburg, Pa. This renowned hub for reptile lovers sells anything with scales and more. While most people that attend this expo are enthusiasts, any everyday person can take home monitor lizards, venomous snakes and even alligators to raise as household pets. Most of the animals are juveniles that can grow into a big problem.

Exotic animals may be owned, but release of such animals into the wild is prohibited in every state. Incidences of unexpected escape by an animal can be dangerous and are never wanted by owners. Unfortunately, some owners release their pets purposefully because they cannot take care of them anymore. Some exotic animals are released into the wild while they’re young; their owners seemingly not considering their potential size as they grow. Because of this, intentional release is most common with large snakes and alligators. In Florida, numerous Burmese pythons have been released, demonstrating the consequences of this illegal action. Although originally native to Southeast Asia, this species can survive in the habitats of Florida and has even become a breeding population. Before long, these snakes could be officially considered an introduced species, completely changing the dynamic of Florida’s ecology. Authorities have instated Python Patrol teams to prevent this from happening. Patrol teams’ jobs are to locate wild pythons, capture them and try their best to find a suitable home. If proper facilities are not found, the officers are forced to euthanize the animals.

“The Elephant in the Living Room,” which is available on Netflix, was released in 2010 when Ohio was battling for stricter exotic animal ownership laws. After many tragic incidents, animal issues in Ohio were addressed and necessary laws were passed a few years ago. The Ohio Dangerous Wild Animal Act went into effect Jan. 1, 2014. Due to this act, it is now prohibited to own big cats, non-human primates, elephants, hippos, alligators, bears, hyenas and more. This is a huge success for the safety of animals and humans alike.

The post Moo Over This | Lions and tigers and bears—all mine! appeared first on The Triangle.

It is a fact that theater companies use peoples’ appearances in casting. A person may or may not get a role or job due to their physical shape, face, hair color, height, etc. Judging people based on their appearance is a tricky subject. Some argue that such judgments are valid because they help create something wonderful: They are needed to carry out a director’s artistic vision or to please the audience. This viewpoint is often the grand finale of an argument about superficiality in a theater. Many performers don’t see this as a serious problem because these superficial judgments seem to come with the job. Anyone arguing with this “doesn’t understand” or “is making a big deal.”

I counter that just because something fits the status quo doesn’t mean it’s morally acceptable. These arguments are fundamentally flawed. What the audience wants is almost impossible to measure because the “audience” is composed of anyone who can get a ticket. A director or producer’s right to deny someone a role due to their appearance is debatable because this is a judgment based on one person’s preferences and may not actually create something that is stage worthy. The current status quo allows people to be barred from the stage due to physical “flaws,” as determined by the direction. These judgments are not harmless, and when the issue of race is involved, the problem only gets bigger.

I am currently working in a theater in southern Germany. We have a premiere of “Cabaret” next week, yet instead of worrying about perfecting my moves and voice, I’m preoccupied with a moral dilemma. If you don’t know the story of “Cabaret,” it’s a musical based on the story of an American man visiting Berlin during the rise of Hitler. He falls in love with and eventually ends things with a British woman working in a nightclub. The show touches on a number of issues, especially those of racism and discrimination. The perfect medium for addressing the issue of neo-Nazism in Germany, right?

Unfortunately, the producer of the show is perpetuating discrimination with his own casting decisions. In an effort to remain loyal to the setting of the musical, he has refused to cast anyone in the piece who is obviously not white. Most of the participants are white and German, others are white foreigners, and there are a few less-white people who are hidden with wigs and costumes. The one Asian that he has agreed to put in the show has been relegated to a small, virtually hidden part, despite her dancing and performing skills. This young Japanese woman outperforms many people who have been cast as cabaret girls, yet she is hidden in the back due to her beautiful black hair and almond eyes.

Other people in the cast, such as myself, are also “auslander” in Deutschland. I am an American Catholic who would probably have faced barriers in getting hired as a cabaret girl during the Nazi regime, yet in this musical my true background is not seen in my white face and is easily ignored. One would think that the facts that my German is schieß and I’m one of the most junior members of the theater would prove a hindrance. In reality, these two details seem to be less problematic than skin color for the producer of the show. A black member of the opera choir has not been cast in the show despite his great German and 10 years of experience in the theater. Ditto for the Japanese woman and a number of other Asian members of the opera as well. A black or Asian’s foreignness stands out more visually than my own, so it is more immediately targeted. My whiteness helps me blend and means that I am a prominent member of the show because I’m white, regardless of my qualifications.

Some people argue that the blacks and Asians in the theater should take the decision “less personally.” How can they do so in the context of current issues of racism and discrimination? I know that they have experienced other instances of prejudice in their lives, and it is difficult to remain self-confident when you know your appearance is a hindrance to your career. It’s a terrible thing to realize that you are powerless to change what is seen as a “flaw” or “problem” through other people’s eyes. In effect, the producer made a number of people feel judged and uncomfortable due to unchangeable physical characteristics, all in the effort to please the audience and create an accurate setting onstage.

Is this just? Is the excuse of purity of setting justified? Would an audience member seriously object or stop believing in the magic of the musical because of a few nonwhites on stage? I seriously hope not, and if they do, they should learn to be a bit more imaginative and open-minded. Discrimination and racism are wrong in any context, and all efforts should be made to avoid them. The International Labour Organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations, states that discrimination in the workplace:

“entails treating people differently because of certain characteristics — such as race, color or sex — which results in the impairment of equality of opportunity and treatment. In other words, discrimination results in and reinforces inequalities. The freedom of human beings to develop their capabilities and to choose and pursue their professional and personal aspirations is restricted, without regard for ability. Skills and competencies cannot be developed; rewards to work are denied; and a sense of humiliation, frustration and powerlessness takes over.”

The “Cabaret” situation, along with innumerable others in the theater world, fits this description perfectly. The performing arts world is not exempt from these laws and should not be given leeway to violate them in the name of artistic liberties. It is better to sacrifice minor details in setting rather than judge people based on their race. The magic of the stage should be derived from the skills of experts in acting, singing, dancing, costume making and set building, not from the genes that make us a color, whether that means we’re white, black or purple.

Alissa Stover is an online student majoring in psychology. She can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Discrimination in choosing actors is unjustified appeared first on The Triangle.