Last week, Somali congresswoman Ilhan Omar was under intense scrutiny for her comments on Twitter about Israel-Palestine relations and was under pressure from her party to apologize. President Trump even called for her resignation. When GOP leader Kevin McCarthy threatened discipline for Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib due to their criticism of the state of Israel, Omar replied, “It’s all about the Benjamins baby!”

Her tweets imply Democratic members’ support of Israel through lobbyist donations. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby, does in fact gain financial incentives from Democratic members. Although it was a grave generalization on her part in asserting that the US-Israel alliance is based solely on money, I do not feel that her comments were anti-semitic in nature.

Antisemitism is defined as a prejudice of Jews, yet congresswoman Omar has proven to be an advocate for diversity. She is the first Somali-American Muslim Congresswoman and has been attacked for her identity, facing the double standard that Trump and even McCarthy himself were not held to for their comments in the past.

By pointing out the exceedingly influential and problematic role lobbyists play in our governmental institutions, Omar’s intentions are clear, however, she acknowledged how her words may have come across, and so she apologized out of decency and respect for her party members and people who felt that her comments had anti-semitic tropes. In doing so, she listened to her party members and issued an apology that acknowledges the voices of others. She did not succumb to attacks on her own identity as a Somali-American in an increasingly Islamophobic administration.

Although I do not believe that Congresswoman Omar, in supporting the BDS movement and advocating for the end of occupation by Israel, is anti-semitic, I do believe that party members had the right to voice their concerns over her comments. Drawing from this, Omar’s critique of the state of Israel should not be generalized as prejudice towards Jews, because the state and civilians of the state should not be equated.

It is important to acknowledge a history of antisemitism, but how is silencing any critique of the state creating equal discourse? What we see is one-sided discourse, and both Tlaib and Omar have attempted to have voices in a debate where pro-Palestinian dissenters are often excluded as anti-semitic when this is not the case. In conflating anti-Zionism with anti-semitism, opponents of the women have fundamentally defined how discourse about Palestine and Israel should follow.

With diversity in congress, we can not expect homogenous opinions and debates, and in silencing any critique of the state of Israel, there is only the deflecting of voices that belong in this conversation.

War-torn Yemen has been largely absent from political discourse even in spite of famine leaving millions of children malnourished, susceptible to disease and starvation. If a ceasefire is not enacted, the U.S. will be complicit in the worst humanitarian crisis, with 13 million Yemenis at risk of starvation.

As of September 2018, 5.2 million children in Yemen were at risk of starvation. Civilians are bearing the brunt of a politically fueled conflict; 22.2 million Yemenis rely on humanitarian aid for survival. Supplies are denied to the Huthi rebels with the issuing of blockades of the Saudi Arabia led coalition. The coalition imposes regulations and restrictions on aid in the form of necessities like food, goods, medicine and fuel.

The 3 year conflict between Huthi rebels and Yemen’s government supported by Saudi Arabia has created a humanitarian crisis, as aid has not been substantial and the cost of necessities like food and water have become unaffordable for civilians in need. According to the UN, since 2015 food prices have gone up 68 percent. Negotiations have proven futile. The UN Security Council most recently called for a ceasefire and greater aid for Yemen, however the U.S blocked the resolution since it is critical of Saudi Arabia.  

“Saudi Arabia would gladly withdraw from Yemen if the Iranians would agree to leave. They would immediately provide desperately needed humanitarian assistance,” President Donald Trump said in a statement Nov. 20.

In this statement, Trump absolves Saudi Arabia from any part in the current humanitarian crisis and brutal warfare.

U.S. support for the Saudi led coalition will further exacerbate the conflict. Thousands of civilians have been killed since the start of the war in 2015, and if powerful nations like the U.S. continue to turn a blind eye and voice support for Saudi Arabia, peace talks will prove to be fruitless.

Pressure from humanitarian groups and charities to halt support for Saudis in Yemen is based on the fact that this would save lives in Yemen. The situation is only worsening on the ground for civilians and international outrage over the humanitarian crisis is evident. A YouGov survey of 1,168 participants showed that 82 percent believed Congress should vote to halt or decrease arms to Saudi Arabia.

This week U.S. senators plan to vote on a bill to end U.S. support for the Saudi led coalition which demonstrates that lawmakers are siding against Trump’s militant agenda.

The U.S. has the power to reverse the narrative and demonstrate that the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia could be compromised if a ceasefire is not enacted.

Photograph courtesy of Lawrence Jackson at Wikimedia Commons

On May 4 the House of Representatives voted to replace the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. The American Health Care Act of 2017 passed the House with a 217-213 vote with all Democrats opposing the bill. Hotly debated with much controversy around the issue, the rights of people have essentially been ignored.

The bill is a reflection of the deep-rooted hypocrisy of the House Republicans and the Senate Republicans within the healthcare working group.

What is most striking is that 13 men worked on this bill, most of whom are conservatives in opposition to the ACA but no women.

Female members of Congress were not represented in the making of this bill; members who should have had an equal say due to experience with healthcare law and policy.

This further perpetuates a double standard within the GOP through the silencing of women. There are 21 women in Senate and the voices of all Americans should be heard. The bill should not just benefit the upper-class, privileged white males who make up the healthcare-working group, especially when the bill deems preexisting conditions that disproportionately affect women.

Ironically enough, some members who signed off on the bill admitted that they did not personally read the bill in full. It was approved without a Congressional Budget Office analysis of costs and demographics of those who would be covered by the bill.

Most controversial is the fact that the bill allows for rolling back protections for people with pre-existing conditions, which in turn may hike up the cost of health care for 130 million Americans.

A pre-existing condition is essentially a condition that a patient had before obtaining an insurance policy; the classification is used by health insurers to deny people coverage or increase their premiums.

Under the ACA, insurance companies were not permitted to use preexisting conditions in order to charge more money or refuse coverage to the impoverished who otherwise would not be able to afford health coverage. Essentially, under the Republican health care bill, if it is passed in Senate and then officially signed, it could permit the unfair use of one’s health history for insurer’s gain, which says more about how the members of this administration show a blatant disregard for the poor.

Preexisting conditions include conditions like diabetes, obesity, diseases like cancer and lupus. The list is vast, and even conditions that are highly common like acne and high blood pressure that could have people denied coverage by some insurers, yet accepted by others with the downside of being charged a higher premium. The bill will allow states to decide what is deemed a preexisting condition for health care coverage purposes.

The bill allows insurers to charge people with preexisting conditions more money for health insurance. By denying people access to health care, a vicious cycle of poverty, and gross societal inequities will only persist.

The legislation, by ways of punishing people for common conditions and diseases, could result in excessive increases in insurance. The price of pregnancy under Trump care could increase by 425 percent due to insurance premium cost, which would severely increase the price of living and family planning for all Americans.

The GOP is aiding institutions that have historically worked against minority groups, when our own government should be actively advocating for the underprivileged. Although the Senate is expected to heavily revise the bill and even start one from scratch, it is clear that Senate Republicans will still feed into the agenda of fellow Republicans in order to appease the party and serve their own agenda.

In an effort to repeal Obamacare, the new bill does not justify a complete overturning of the basic rights of American people. Once again, our trust in the system has been violated, as it has been made apparent that laws put in place that affect us all will only be created to serve the interests of those in power.

Ramsha Ahmad: The Triangle

With Drexel’s fast-paced terms, spring break is a way to slow down and de-stress (besides, of course, final grades also being released). While some people plan vacations or choose to stay home and hibernate, there is also the option of Alternative Spring Break.

At Drexel, the Alternative Spring Break program is a service immersion trip that focuses on a central theme, whether it is hunger, homelessness or immigration. There are both local trips, and out of state trips.

In the midst of academic stress, it is beneficial to de-stress by embarking on service trips and gaining insights while making new friends and learning more about a community’s needs.

No matter how involved you may be on campus, Drexel can seem like it has its own bubble. Once you go outside of the bubble, you see communities much different than the developing University City.

For my Alternative Spring Break trip, I traveled to the community of Point Breeze with a group of six students and stayed at the Aquinas Center, an inclusive community center located in South Philadelphia that welcomes immigrants.

Over the course of the week, the group focused on the theme of immigration and got a taste of Malaysian and Indonesian cultures by eating food and interacting with immigrants who come to the Aquinas Center for literacy programs. The group assisted people who are in need at a food pantry in Kensington and learned from New Sanctuary Movement about the journey undocumented immigrants go through in order to come to the United States.

On a service trip to Philabundance, an organization focused on reducing food waste and providing families suffering from food insecurity, we found that the organization received almost 7 million pounds of produce from supermarkets that would otherwise have gone to waste.

From helping children with homework at a religious-based organization in South Philadelphia, to learning about refugee’s status and the obstacles they face in gaining this legal status, these insights foster a kind of growth in an individual that is so different from the learning that happens in school. Service learning and immersion can give a student a new perspective on the communities one had previous assumptions about.

The reflection that goes on after each service activity creates a closer bond between a group and forces you to get out of your comfort zone into a contact zone, where you are at once forced to grapple ideas you are unfamiliar with and be molded by the insights that are shared. Whether someone is familiar with struggling neighborhoods in Philadelphia, or has never been in these neighborhoods, that person will gain a new perspective, regardless.

The immigrant population in Philadelphia is greater than what meets the eye. This service learning trip forced me to get outside of my comfort zone, interact with immigrants and learn about refugees and their struggles, in light of how they are painted by media networks and often excluded from the narrative of inclusivity.

The service immersion trip lasts a week and may be exhausting at times, but it is definitely rewarding in the end. Service learning draws on values of empathy and understanding and although the service might be strenuous, it teaches us that there are people in need who should not be limited to the stereotypes and stigmas that they are represented by in society.

Whether one is a refugee, immigrant, a person in a state of homelessness or hunger, that person should still be valued and understood, as each person has their own story and many times, has been failed by a vicious cycle of oppression perpetuated by our institutions.

Service trips allow you to bond with others, and make powerful connections while simultaneously learning more about yourself. You can gain valuable leadership qualities that will have a lasting impact in spite of what career path you take. Through service, you can grow as a person and truly see the the impact you have made on a community.

Ludovic Bertron: Wikipedia

During his divisive campaign, President Donald Trump presented himself as more of a moderate by disavowing conservative Republican orthodoxy and making a promise to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

He adhered to this promise when he committed to enforcing the executive order issued by the Obama administration that serves to protect LGBTQ individuals from workplace discrimination. In contrast to issuing an immigration order, having questionable conflicts of interests regarding foreign policy and appointing Cabinet members, many of whom have been unfavorable to the public, Trump’s promise to the LGBTQ community may have served as a sign of hope for the marginalized community.

However, President Trump evidently turned his back on his promise to the LGBTQ community. Officials from the departments of  Education and Justice notified the U.S. Supreme Court Feb. 22, that they would be rescinding the memos the Obama administration had issued during the last two years in reference to transgender students rights. The memos significantly spoke out against prohibiting transgender students from using facilities that align with their gender identity, which is a violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.

The Trump administration entitled the letter, “Dear colleague,” to nation’s public schools, yet it does not offer guidance, as this was rescinded completely. These actions are hypocritical and only reflect that the new administration weighs issues of its self interest more than issues that affect one in five students who identify as transgender.

An integral part of this memo of guidance instructed school officials to allow transgender students to use restrooms based on the gender with which they identify. The rollbacks are consequential and dangerous on the part of this administration.

It signals to the LGBTQ community and allies that the progress the community has made in the past decade is being threatened and that the movement of resistance must be strengthened to fight against a ruling that only encourages violence against transgender students who face oppression in all institutions.

By rescinding the memos, the Trump administration sends a clear message to students of the transgender community: they are not safe in the institutions that are meant to allow for growth and serve as a sanctuary. This is not only a violation of human rights, but an attack on the freedoms of the LGBTQ community who have only just begun to see progress. As a nation, we cannot stand by as the administration calls this a federal issue. How can we foster an inclusive environment in schools when a whole community of students who are already susceptible to violence and oppressive measures now face new concerns?

There is no justification. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Vice President Mike Pence have been known for slander against the LGBTQ community. As they now reside in positions of power and continue to influence President Trump, it is becoming more clear that President Trump regards them as his confidantes. By appointing Jeff Sessions and Pence to these positions of power and placing them on a pedestal that enables them to wield this power in a destructive manner, President Trump has proven that he is not an advocate for gay and transgender rights. He has made it clear that he will continue to turn his back on our democracy and focus on immigration orders, and will continue the silencing of marginalized communities.  

Instead of creating bridges, he will build walls. We are going backwards, and our progress is being reversed as each day passes with the current administration that has never listened to our concerns but rather drawn upon its own conservative ideals to make its own ideal America. We must take it upon ourselves to organize and make our voices heard against the injustices that pose a threat to the most basic rights of our fellow Americans.

Stephen M. Dowell: Orlando Sentinel/TNS

Although the United States built itself around the promise of free speech, lately this fundamental American right has been in question.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts spoke Feb. 7 from the Senate floor in strong opposition of Sen. Jeff Sessions, President Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general.

In 1986, Coretta Scott King wrote a letter voicing dissent against Jeff Sessions nomination for federal judgeship. Within this letter, the voice of an activist resonated with the voice of democracy. Warren read aloud from this letter, as is her right granted to her by the Constitution.

However, she was interrupted by presiding chair of the Senate who invoked Rule 19, which “forbids members from imputing to a colleague ‘any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.’”

Warren’s quote of King’s letter called Sessions a disgrace, due to his history of partisan and corrupt voting fraud prosecutions. King wrote that he “lacks the temperament, fairness and judgment to be a federal judge.” Yet, Warren was called out for impugning the character of Sessions.

In this letter, King said, “Anyone who has used the power of his office as United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free exercise of the ballot by citizens should not be elevated to our courts. Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not be rewarded with a federal judgeship.”

Warren was silenced because she exercised her right to free speech. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell validated his decision by saying, “Senator Warren was giving a lengthy speech. She had appeared to violate the rule. She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.”

Warren did persist.

As a public servant who has fought for the people since day one of Trump’s autocratic tendencies and attacks on free speech he has carried out himself. From his Twitter sprees that admonish media outlets and cry that any source of news opposing him is “fake news,” or his team’s suggestions that “alternative facts” are permissible, it is clear that Trump wants an America that denies its right to free speech. The exception is if it is in favor of Trump and his dangerous policies and reprehensible rhetoric.

Warren’s silencing holds a mirror up to the double standard in politics. This dangerous, partisan undermining of our nation’s values calls for a reevaluation of what our democracy means.

Our constitutional rights are in question. Warren’s resistance, in her courage to voice a critique of Sessions, in her efforts to listen and advocate for the American people, exemplifies resilience.

As a female politician who faced this roadblock when she engaged in respectful debate without attacking his character, but rather a strong critique of a man whose record on civil rights cases proves controversial, she gained the support of the American public and her fellow colleagues on the Senate floor. She was followed by colleagues like Sen. Chuck Schumer, Sen. Bernie Sanders and others, who read aloud from the same letter by Coretta King Scott and were not silenced in the way Warren wrongfully was.

Forbidden from taking part in floor debate over Sessions’ nomination, she took to her social media accounts and read a full account of the letter. Schumer and Sanders both noted that much more obvious and direct attacks on the very same floor were disregarded, those by male members of the Senate. Although the Democratic effort to allow Warren to keep speaking failed, she continues to speak out about the injustices within the government system and serve as a voice for the voiceless.

This double standard sparks debate about how in the 21st century, women can still be undermined in places of power when confronted by the authority of an arbitrary “rule” that takes precedence only when no truer words could be spoken. When one wants to deny the truth, they turn to rules that place no value on the context in which the words are spoken.

How many times have women in history fought for their right to speak our minds? History tells a story of women that never gave up; women like Rosa Parks, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton, who risked their lives so that women in the future would be able to tell their stories and be valued as equals.

Nevertheless, she persists.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is a politician to be reckoned with. The irony of McConnell’s very own words being used against him to fuel the resistance against the notion that women can be silenced for the same words spoken decades ago reflects the nature of the state of our nation. Although our rights are being questioned, women in our government, workplaces, schools and homes, who live worlds apart from each other, will not be silenced by men for sharing the words of another strong woman.

Warren said, “they can shut me up, but they can’t change the truth,” with victory in her voice.

The truth of history, the truth of our own stories and the power we possess to tell our stories will never be silenced.

Fibonacci Blue: Flickr

On January 27, President Donald Trump issued executive order entitled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” a severe directive that restricts migration from seven Muslim-majority countries concerning “extreme vetting.”

Under this executive order, natives of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are prohibited from entering the United States for at least 90 days. Refugee admission and resettlement is also suspended for at least 120 days, and Syrian refugee entry into the United States has been permanently suspended for now.

In a nation built by immigrants, this executive order is offensive, inhumane and only serves to divide us all.  The America that has lifted its lamp to the huddled masses and opened its doors to those fleeing terror and persecution has now closed its doors due to the fear of terror.

With the stroke of his pen, President Trump has criminalized millions and from these millions, he has exempted non-Muslims in the Muslim majority countries under the section that religious minorities who face “religious based persecution, provided that religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.”

This is evidently a Muslim ban, in spite of President Trump’s claims that it is not, that this is an effort to protect the security of this nation, to “protect our own citizens and border.”

Contradicting his statements, Trump tweeted, “if the ban were with a one week notice, the ‘bad’ would rush into our country during the week. A lot of bad ‘dudes’ out there!”

It is important to note that no immigrant from any of the seven countries on the list have committed an act of terror on U.S. soil that has resulted in a death.

Trump’s contradictory statements tie “terror”and the “bad” to the Muslim community and place limitations on their freedoms and liberties, which have been granted by the very nation that is the “land of the free and the home of the brave.” There is no freedom in banning a people due to fears of “terror” attacks when Syrian refugees are fleeing this same terror. Furthermore, the list of countries excludes those where Trump has business ties like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and others.

Donald Trump is facing the wrath of the citizens of the United States in response to this executive order that advocates and protesters have named the “Muslim Ban.” Protests erupted at airports around the world on Saturday and through Sunday, as a symbol of solidarity with the 109 people who were detained at U.S. airports.

Many of the detainees who faced such injustices were U.S. citizens. They were barred from seeking legal advice, pressured to sign documents that would relinquish their immigration status and questioned extensively. They were traveling from their native countries, or had visas to join other family members.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s efforts to overturn the unconstitutional ban proved successful, as it resulted in a federal ruling that blocked the deportation of visa holders from the countries included in Trumps ban. Judges in several other states also overturned the ban, yet Trump and the Customs and Border Protection officers are defying the courts.

The notion that this illegal ban will reduce the terrorist threat in the United States is flawed and will result in even more consequences. Experts believe it only addresses the fears that are an integral part of terrorists’ agenda.

Since 2001, 123 killings out of 230,000 by people of various ethnicities and faiths were by terrorists who identified as Muslims. To conflate Islam with terror is irresponsible and only serves the interests of the very terror groups who want to spread fear and polarize the West and Islam against one another. By signing this executive order, President Donald Trump has taken advantage of his title in an attempt to draw fear against a group that is a majority around the globe.

How will this action affect the United States conflicts with the Middle East? This will further exacerbate the hostility and limit any possibility at implementing policy that will address these conflicts. An action that was aimed at fighting terrorism received no support from experts or officials with experience in the field. This is a directive that leaves a stain on our democracy, as it fails to be a success regarding counterterrorism strategy.

With Islamophobia running rampant, there needs to be dialogue that directly addresses our Muslim communities that have been affected by the hate crimes as a result of discriminatory rhetoric on the part of President Trump and politicians and lawmakers who have supported this executive order.

This ban only sends the message to the Muslim community that they are alone, that they are not part of the narrative of inclusivity, acceptance and unity in the America we all call our home.

Tom Williams: Congressional Quarterly

The Senate confirmation hearing for Betsy DeVos, President Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of education, took place Jan. 17. The hearing quickly became a heated, partisan debate, and the the general public was doubtful regarding her ability and competence.

DeVos was questioned about a range of important issues including the federal spending of public money in education, private school vouchers, gun oversight in schools, and the Title IX preponderance standard regarding sexual assault cases in school proceedings.

She made it clear that she wants to limit the role of the federal government in America’s schools. “The answer is local control and listening to parents, students and teachers,” she said in her opening remarks while appearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions.

But does local control alone have the power to generate change in America’s schools? While public schools continue to close down and receive less funding, this does not seem to be a solution for our failing public school system. DeVos’s lack of experience with public schools and her advocacy for voucher systems which would prove harmful to public schools as “school choice” translates to taking money out of public schools to fund and send students to schools that are run privately.

DeVos was questioned by Senator Patty Murray of Washington on whether or not she would work to privatize public schools or cut money from public education. She replied ambiguously that she would look forward to working to “address all needs of parents and students,” thus essentially saying she would not be willing to commit to not privatizing public schools.

Most shocking of all was the exchange between Sen. Chris Murphy who asked if guns had a place in or around schools to which DeVos replied that she thought “that’s best left to locales and states to decide.” She referred to an instance in Wyoming and imagined “there is probably a gun in school to protect from potential grizzlies.”

This grotesque response juxtaposes the fact that Sen. Murphy represents Connecticut where the Sandy Hook shooting occurred, killing 20 children and six staff members. She thus could not definitively say that schools should have guns or should not.

In 2016, 136 mass shootings were reported, and the deadliest shooting in the history of the U.S. occurred at Pulse nightclub in Orlando. This response showed her complacency about an issue that has been debated by Republicans and Democrats with no successful legislation carried out to support gun control during the former administration.

DeVos failed to gain credibility during the hearing, as she refused to present a plan for protecting taxpayer dollars from waste, fraud, and abuse by colleges to Sen. Elizabeth Warren. She will “review” the gainful employment rule that ensures career colleges like Trump University are not fooling students of their money, but once again she did not commit to enforcing existing institutions that serve college students fairly.

DeVos consistently responded with vague answers and no formal agreements or disagreements regarding policy-based questions. She was unaware that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is a federal law, repeating that this issue “should be left to the states.” IDEA protects students with disabilities by requiring public schools to provide children with disabilities a free public education based on their needs. She did not conclusively agree on whether all schools that receive federal funding should be mandated to meet the IDEA requirements.

If the secretary of education pick cannot conclusively agree or disagree when asked about federal laws put in place, or “confuses” federal laws with state laws, then there is an issue here that goes beyond Trump’s “spoils system” approach to appointing people to his administration.

President Trump wanted to “drain the swamp,” yet here we have billionaire Betsy DeVos who qualified for one of the most significant positions, who could have drastic consequences for our education system.

To claim that you have been a voice for parents, students, and primarily low-income children also means that you should not limit your advocacy efforts to private schools, public charter schools, the privatizing of public schools, and school voucher programs. These programs serve to further reinforce racial inequities in our schools, and have been shown to be inconsistent in academic performance outcomes of students involved.

Democrats requested a second hearing for Betsy DeVos, but it was denied. Education is not an issue that should be pushed under the rug. With insufficient time to scrutinize released information about her financial holdings, DeVos’s ethics and character are being put into question.

If Betsy DeVos has the intention of leading our education system, and serving the parents, teachers, and students, she must first be transparent about her financials, and put the needs of the people before profit.

Photo courtesy Drexel University

The word “gentrification” has been passed around quite a bit recently in relation to University City as the neighborhoods around it are visibly changing, with college students moving in and the demographic shifting significantly.  

The 20-year Schuylkill Yards plan has already commenced and there is still the question of how the proposed innovation district will affect long-term homeowners in low-income residential areas that have already been hit hard by high rental rates.

Philadelphia aims to transform neighborhoods in light of rising crime rates and a lack of facilities.

As a result, long-term tenants of neighborhoods face the threat of being forced out of their homes as waves of wealthier and whiter residents move in and buy out these apartments, making their value rise dramatically.

The tenants are outpriced and end up moving to areas of lower income neighborhoods associated with high crime rates, fewer job opportunities and lower performing schools. The statistics speak for the people who won’t be heard.

26.9 percent of Philadelphia’s residents are considered poor or live beneath the poverty line. This is reality for neighborhoods in North Philly, Center City, West Philly and University City.

The average home value in west Philly has risen from $78,000 to $184,000 since 2000 according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. As neighborhoods around Drexel like Mantua and Powelton Village, identified as part of the Promise Zone, become gentrified, rental prices skyrocket by almost 200 percent.

In Mantua alone, half of the residents live under the poverty line and for children the statistics are worse: 96 percent of Mantua’s kids under 5 live in poverty. One in five housing units are vacant. Many of the homes remaining are tax delinquent properties being seized by eminent domain.

What stems from gentrification is seemingly a long list of negatives: foreclosure, eviction, moving out and not being able to cover housing costs.

In the game of gentrification, land developers are the key players but so are universities. Currently, advocacy groups are trying to fight the city for sustainable housing funds.

I spoke to Ariel Morales, an organizer at the Women’s Community Revitalization Project, an advocacy group associated with the Philadelphia Affordable Housing Coalition.

The coalition believes that land developers, who are always the winners, should have to pay for housing, and thus help double the amount of money in the housing trust fund for residents facing the threat of foreclosure due to gentrification.

Universities are part of the problem, but they also have the power to bridge the gap. Drexel has an obligation to the community members who are affected by expansion efforts.

Universities can do so much but they are feeding into their corporate interests rather than bridging the gap between universities and the community.

Drexel University president, John A. Fry has already declared that Schuylkill Yards will help employ residents in struggling areas. If residents from the Promise Zone are employed, businesses receive breaks for hiring those residents.

Bruce Katz works at the Brookings Institution, which is collaborating with Drexel to create the innovation district.

“From the starting point, there is a commitment to neighborhood regeneration, affordable housing, ensuring that market forces don’t just sweep over communities, which are literally a walk or a bike away,” Katz said.

It seems unlikely however, that expansion will take place without displacement.

Drexel aims to bridge the gap and create sustainable partnerships with the community. The Dornsife Center for Neighborhood Partnerships serves mainly local low-income residents in Mantua and Powelton Village neighborhoods.

The center also supports UConnect, an initiative that trains students, employees and alumni to refer residents to programs and counseling agencies. Career services are offered at Dornsife, too.

What’s more, a law clinic, a computer lab, a wellness center and a community kitchen are all currently available to residents.

As of this year, the Dornsife Center introduced a tax outreach program that partners with City Hall officials. Students work one on one with residents who are facing tax delinquencies and refer them to housing counselors.

Jennifer Schultz, a legal representative for Community Legal Services explained: “Some of the notices residents receive in the mail say ‘We may proceed to sheriff sale your house,’ and this creates a lot of panic because residents believe they’re going to lose their homes and they’re not prepared. But what this program can help do is inform residents of the LOOP program that essentially helps reassess taxes, and create a sustainable installment plan.”

LOOP is the main gentrification relief program meant to get residents on the right track towards fulfilling payments, handling important paperwork regarding home ownership, and making sure they are not at risk for tax delinquencies in the future.

Now that cities are becoming places of interests to businesses and to middle class residents, universities see the opportunity to gentrify, but the marginalization of lower income communities results when expansion proceeds unchecked.

Ultimately, Drexel needs to reevaluate what its priorities are because incentivizing gentrification of surrounding low-income neighborhoods is not the answer.

Photo: Matjin van de Streek, Flickr

Ingrid Michaelson brought her indie pop sound to the Fillmore Nov. 14, leaving fans mesmerized by her lulling harmonies, singing and clapping along to all of the fan favorites, new and old.

Ingrid came out to a packed house, accompanied by her ukulele and her three bandmates. Performing a leg of her “Hell No” Tour, Michaelson shined in the city she loved, saying Philadelphia was one of the first cities she ever toured.

It was almost completely dark, except for the spotlight on Michaelson while she showed off her incredible range with a song from her latest album, “Time Machine.”

Background vocals blended perfectly, especially when she continued with a piano solo that caused the whole crowd to go silent. What truly amazed me was how effortlessly she sang, getting a crowd of hundreds to sing along and create a warm atmosphere under the incandescent lights of the venue. Of course she didn’t forget to sing her classic fan favorites; “Parachute,” from her debut album, had the whole crowd clapping to the beat.

Perhaps my favorite moment of the concert was when she belted out incredibly powerful notes with her intimate ukulele cover of “Creep” by Radiohead. Michaelson told the fans that they had to cheer for her when she hit those notes, which got everyone in the room laughing. She followed up with her ballad “The Way I Am” and demanded that everyone sing along to the song she had written 10 years ago. “Be Ok” from her 2008 album had everyone dancing, while Michaelson strummed her ukulele with drums, the guitar and background vocals creating an intimate sound that felt like a live recording on stage.

Michaelson’s onstage presence was great, as she and her bandmates posed for photo ops onstage, dressed in princess hats and tutus, saying that she would make sure she looked great in photos posted on Instagram. The crowd was almost in tears,  becoming Michaelson’s personal choir. Michaelson gave a raw performance, acappella like in the way that she can connect with the audience on a personal level with just her ukulele or by the keyboard.

Transitioning from her softer ballads to more upbeat pop rock, Michaelson rocked out to tunes from her “Lights Out” album like “WarPath” and “Afterlife.” She followed up with another intimate piano solo of “Turn To Stone” that once again showed off her harmonious tone and was almost haunting.

Michaelson ended the show, surrounded by bright lights and upbeat, energetic sounds, with a medley of songs from her new record, “Hell No.” The medley included “Still the One,” “Celebrate” (a personal favorite of mine), and she finally ended with “Girls Chase Boys,” her 2014 hit single from “Lights Out.” Michaelson interjected with a story about how the real eighth grade Jimmy Clark had inspired her to write “Hell No.” She danced around the stage, had a fan sing the chorus of Celebrate, and we all stomped and clapped to “Girls Chase Boys.” It’s the perfect anthem for anyone recovering from a break up.

Michaelson didn’t stop the show there, saying that she couldn’t leave us that way. She came back again with her onstage antics, she and her bandmates donning silver studded jackets. She officially ended the night by having each of her bandmates strut their moves on the stage and everyone had fun.

Michaelson blew the audience away with her incredible vocals and effortless performances alongside her bandmates. She left everyone smiling from nostalgia with her classics, and cheering with her new upbeat pop songs, and there was definitely something for everyone. It was one of the best live performances I’ve seen, and her “onstage antics” really made the audience feel connected and at home, like seeing an old friend.